The following:

Why on earth not?

First of all, the numbers are not “peer re-viewed and published”.

Second, they are only BOE guesses so therefore may not be accurate.

Third, numbers can be used to indicate that bumble bees can not fly yet they do so in nature.

Did you not know that the word “hypothesis“ has a meaning: “theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation.” That is the meaning that I assumed the reader would understand.

Your question:

What was the barometric pressure at sea level even 60 years ago, what is it now?

I assumed that you were smart enough to decipher the meaning of the simple words that I used to explain my viewpoint.
But since the words seem to have been above your comprehension, I will try again.

About 45 years ago I had a book that had no covers, it was published and printed in England about 90 years before I obtained and read it.

That book contained lot of information on a variety of science related material, such as chemistry, composition of atmosphere and its pressure, how to make hot air balloons out of “taffeta,” also many other things such as how to make coloured fire and how to make varnish out of the raw ingredients.

I remember reading about the atmospheric pressure and I distinctly remember that 32 inches of mercury was indicated as the pressure of the atmosphere at sea level.

What I do not recall for certainty (after more than 40 years) is whether that figure was the representation of the maximum pressure at sea level or if it was a reference to the average pressure.

That is one of the reasons that I am proposing this “hypothesis“ here so that it can be scrutinized by variety of people.
Your objections are welcome but your method of criticism does not produce progress in solving the problem.

You asked:

Why is radioactivity, as a heat source, any different than any other heat source, say caused by oxidation.

Why go to the expense of making expensive nuclear power plants if we can use rusting automobiles to do the same job?

Does it not strike you as a "difference" in the two reactions; when chemical reaction ceases, the heat production ceases also, but in a nuclear reaction, when the “heat” generation is considered to be at an end, the “activity” of the material is greater than it was when the “heat” generation was started?

You asked:

No new radioactivity is created, only mined, concentrated and harnessed.

That is not quite true, radioactive material can be used to “create” new radioactive material; by placing radioactive material close to non radioactive material, the non radioactive material will become radioactive.

There are many references to man-made radiation on the internet.

http://www.rpii.ie/press/pr200705.htm

Radiation is usually divided into two groups: naturally occurring and man-made radiation. Natural radiation sources include radon, thoron, cosmic rays, external gamma rays from the ground and natural radionuclides in food and water. Man-made radiation is used in medicine and industry. It also comes from the generation of nuclear power and the reprocessing of nuclear fuel in facilities such as Sellafield. For a given amount of radiation, however, there is no difference between the harm caused by naturally occurring or man-made radiation.

You said:

How then does the process by which man harnesses the heat from natural radioactive source decay somehow heat the atmosphere more efficiently than several thousand million billion times the amount of the original radioactive source ores?

Perhaps not more “efficiently” but certainly more effectively simply because the radioactive material is in contact with the air molecules.

The amount of heat released into the atmosphere and/or environment from the harnessing and release of radioactive sources is absurdly small given the amount of heating imparted by the sun, or even by the amount of kinetic energy imparted by the tidal force of the moon. Why then, under your 'hypothesis' has our atmosphere not already oiled away?

I guess you mean boiled away.
Over the eons of time the celestial sources of energy have come to a balance with the terrestrial sources so that there was as much energy going out as there was coming in.
This balance is still true, the only difference is that we are loosing energy into space at an accelerated rate.
Not all of the energy lost by Earth is in the form of radiation, some of it is in the form of escaping atoms and molecules.
When we increase the kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules of the atmosphere, we increase their chances of escaping the Earth’s gravitational influence.

And this hypothesis can be used to explain all the mentioned/observed phenomenon.

Do you have a hypothesis that can be used to explain all the mentioned phenomenon?

You said:

Please, by all means, do a lindy and go screaming for the moderators or storm off in a huff, or accuse me of being an incomparable jerk for asking you to answer to rudimentary reasoning.

Your wish is NOT my command.

My philosophy is that all dumb animals have some kind of a purpose.
What is your philosophy about animals?