Todays grauniad has a piece by Monckton, “This wasn’t gibberish. I got my facts right on global warming”. Its in the “response” column, where people get a chance to reply. Sadly its all more gibberish. But also somewhat sadly the piece it responds to by Monbiot also contains some mistakes, and is itself a reaction to Monckton’s bit in the Torygraph (in fact its all so badly written its rather hard to tell if Monbiot is just quoting Monckton or making mistakes of his own; and what Monckton is talking about is only even slightly comprehensible after reading the RC response…). I don’t think either of them understand the difference between stephan-boltzmann, which is a physical law, and climate sensitivity, which is a diagnostic: its an output from the AOGCMs, not an input, as Monckton seems to believe. For the truth, as usual, you’re best off with RC.
Monckton in the response refuses to admit he’s wrong over the well-known issue of Hansens graph; he attributes the 1990 “MWP” schematic to the 1996 (?) report (a mistake copied from elsewhere, probably Daly; see-also wiki); and so much else is wrong with it its rather hard to know where to start. Or indeed, why to bother, since its the same old stuff all over again.