How the IPCC fools everyone that CO2 drives climate instead of the Sun

The IPCC claims that only an increase in man-made greenhouse gases can explain most of the global warming observed during the 20th century. To justify this position, the IPCC programs computer models with multiple dubious assumptions, such as in the graph below showing assumed values in the models:

1. Greatly exaggerated, alleged radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere from increased greenhouse gases [mostly CO2]  of 2 W/m2 from 1959-2000, even though the "IPCC formula" found in the fine print of AR4 predicts a much smaller change of 0.837 W/m2 [58% less] during the same period [5.35*ln(369.52/315.97) = 0.837 W/m2].

2. No change in forcing due to changes in cloud cover, even though multiple papers show a decrease in cloudiness observed in the late 20th century could alone account for all observed global warming. 

3. The false assumption that the effect of solar radiation on the Earth's surface can be modeled by tiny changes in Total Solar Irradiance [TSI] at the top of the atmosphere, shown in the graph below as the blue line. The models falsely assume there has been no change in solar radiation at the Earth surface from the 1930's to the end of the 20th century. In reality, multiple papers have shown the effects of solar radiation at the Earth surface are greatly modified and amplified by changes in clouds, ozone, large changes in solar UV and the solar magnetic field, aerosols, and other factors. Observations have shown swings of solar radiation at the Earth surface of 5 W/m2 over the past 18 years alone [1987-2005], far more than the ~0.25 W/m2 ripples and zero net change of TSI assumed in the blue line below.

4. That the effects of volcanic eruptions are accurately modeled, even though this has been shown to be false, and which also has large effects upon solar radiation at the Earth surface.

5. That long-term trends in ocean oscillations can be ignored in the models, and which also have been shown to correlate with solar activity.

6. That chaotic systems [the ultimate example of which is the climate] can be modeled by linear assumptions. 

7. That increased CO2 will cause an increase in atmospheric water vapor, even though observations show a decline in atmospheric water vapor. 

8. That water vapor acts as a positive feedback, even though observations clearly demonstrate that water vapor acts as a negative feedback. 

9. That increased CO2 will heat the oceans [71% of Earth's surface], even though observations show the ability of doubled CO2 to heat the oceans is essentially zero. 

The IPCC climate models are little more than computer games built upon multiple absurd assumptions and circular reasoning. They do, however, serve the purpose of fooling most of the people, all the time. 

Radiative forcing assumptions in IPCC computer models. Source

Another source of assumptions programmed in the models.