Again you twist words I said I did not want your opinion but I...

Again you twist words
I said I did not want your opinion but I do want science on these things if that is available to support your argument. Otherwise you are expressing theory and opinion, which means little without scientific evidence.

re your point 1
no a simple google search does not show how the science supports how each of those things affect surface temperatures and specifically how that is quantified so that you can show their additive affect is as you claim/
point 2, I take it you acknowledge you have a half baked theory with no evidence
point 3, No, a cooling phase continued through till the late 70's, though reducing in it's cooling affect. From there it became warming and increased till'87 then cooled for a bit. At least that's how I see it from the science I am reading. But you also need to show evidence how this interacted with point 1 to influence global temperatures overall and to what extent. Papers I've provided have done this for AGW and ENSO.
point 4, ok so you withdraw point 4.

So all you need to do now is show scientific evidence how the other points combine to cause global warming as we've seen it. And while you are at it, you better give us some scientific evidence of how the greenhouse affect interacts with these theoretical natural causes of warming. What's the science on that - has greenhouse gas warming gone away in this science of yours or is it less or is it countered by these things you are raising?

Seems to me you have dropped the sunspot thing that you have harped on for weeks, because you have no evidence for it
Seems to me you have dropped the "double wammy of atlantic and pacific together" idea

so we are making progress to sanity

lets see where you get to on the science behind the others then and whether that supports your views or not