Greenhouse gases thrust into the atmosphere mainly by burning fossil fuels are warming Earth's surface more quickly than previously understood, according to new climate models set to replace those used in current UN projections, scientists said Tuesday.
So, the objections in that page have been dealt with many times over; even in the page itself there is a comment pointing to the simple explanation of why its interpretation is based on ignorance of basic facts of the matter. (And a long discussion that follows where the author of the comment patiently responds to other objections unrelated to the fact that the article is proven wrong).
Moreover, climate models are not based simply on data, but also on large scale physics simulations of the planet.
So it is also a consequence of atmospheric physics that the rise in carbon dioxide causes heat to be retained in our planet. And there is no question about the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the last century.
Add to that tree rings
And, very unfortunately, today we wouldn't even need that our data and models be as precise as they are, because we can already see the consequences directly, through measures of surface ice, water and fire.
If you're offered a choice between breaking your arm or playing russian roulette, the logical option is to pick the first.
The comments on that first page you linked already suggest why some of the causes of homogenization can be systematic, such as a change in the time of day for measures. Another simple cause is, as time evolves, the installation of stations further away from cities, which are warm. With stations appearing in colder places you need to cool down the past to compare it. These systematic causes will create biases with a preferential direction. Not to mention the correction does sometimes bias towards the other direction, as seen in the very figures in the article. Climate science is complex, I'm not an expert either, however the science is out there to be learned. The commenter in the article even links to further details of the analysis, and it's not hard to find more information online. Now, that you asked some authority and they couldn't provide an answer at the moment doesn't imply there is no answer. Science is a shared enterprise, nobody has all the answers in their heads - or the patience to deal with people calling them neo-colonialists for no good during a conversation.
Same thing for tree rings, science is not about one person's claimed experience in their own context, it is about the shared comparative experience of many independent people in different contexts. Maybe where you are trees show something going on two centuries ago, very well then, if you're curious go seek an explanation. That doesn't detract from what other people have also registered and studied. And tree rings are only one of several points of evidence coherent with climate change.
Anyway, I just don't have the time to explain why each of the links you share have issues. There is plenty of climate denial debunking material all around the web. Also, please don't try to distort my words, I never mentioned breaking _your_ arm, it was clearly a sentence where "yours" appears in the sense of "your own" or "one's". I assume language is a barrier, so I don't entirely blame you.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the concept of systematic error. Not every source of error behaves the way you suppose. I even gave an example.
I must say I find it curious that you so passionately defend the no-climate-change positions and actions of the large neoliberal banks
and authoritarian neocolonial regimes (such as the forest burner Bolsonaro), while accusing others of being neoliberal and neocolonialist without any hesitation.