I don’t think you read the article carefully, or are familiar with the issue he was addressing. The IPCC created models of what warming wold look like from different sources. The one for CO2 warming predicts a hot spot in the upper atmosphere over the tropics, so is it any surprise that this is the data that was analyzed? What do surface temperatures, and areas other than the tropics have to do with the issue he raised? Absolutely nothing.
Well this is as frail as an argument can get. Had only the reanalyzed data been plotted you might have a semblance of an argument, but since all the data - balloon, satellite, and reanalyses - was shown there’s nothing here at all.
Again, I don’t think you understand at all the significance of the argument. It was the IPCC that predicted a hot spot over the tropics at a specific altitude range as being indicative of CO2 warming. The presence of warming, but the absence of the CO2 indicator really ought to mean something, like maybe the models don’t really model the actual climate very well, or if they do then warming is not being caused by CO2.
I imagine you wouldn’t have been so eager if you understood the thrust of the argument. The IPCC predicted a very specific heat signature for CO2 greenhouse warming - a “hot spot” over the tropics. It isn’t there.