Well, that’s certainly a Gish Gallop of bullshit.
Let’s see: You reproduced a couple of John Christy’s graphs re satellite data about an average of model runs vs. satellite estimates of the temperature of the Mid-Troposphere. Since the satellite estimates are themselves model runs, I don’t know what you think that proves. But Christy’s graphs, which he presented in Congressional testimony, have some basic flaws, discussed here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/
The claim that GHCN homogenization of data is “fakery” is astonishingly stupid. Discussions here: https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2017/02/flutter-in-ghcn-v3-adjusted-temperatures.html here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/techreports/Technical%20Report%20NCDC%20No12-02-3.2.0-29Aug12.pdf here: http://euanmearns.com/homogenisation-adjustments-to-temperature-records-southern-hemisphere/
I can’t tell whether you simply don’t understand statistics or you are being deliberately deceptive in comparing “95% certainly” which refers to the confidence interval and the figure that humans account for 110% of global warming — which means that, absent natural countertrends, human factors are enough to account for more than the observed warming.
“ It appears the oceans were responsible for 1/2 the climate change since 1950…” LOL. Do you think that oceans emit heat, like a star? Oceans and the atmosphere distribute heat/energy around the world. They don’t cause it. In order for the earth to warm, give more or less constant insolation, more solar energy has to be retained: IOW, radiative forcing.
This statement: “That is not surprising as Dr Mann has been shown to have flawed mathematics throughout his work history.” More bullshit from you. Mann’s work has received more scrutiny than almost any other scientist in history. Let’s see an example of “flawed mathematics” that doesn’t rely on the long discredited McIntyre-McKitrick attack on MBH (1999.)