I do agree that coverting all GHG's to CO2e is a valid approach.
I do not agree with Monckton's approach - and remember, it was an assumption on your part this is the approach he is taking because he never ever said "CO2 equivalent". His approach seems to be to convert to CO2e and suggest that the climate sensitivity is therefore lower than currently accepted.
You have illustrated it beautifully when you said "If the temperatures haven not jumped enormously given this almost doubling in CO2, please explain how the current fear-mongering science is not modelling an over sensitive climate."
Please use CO2e when you mean CO2e. I don't want to go over old ground but we all agree that CO2 has not doubled and has not even "almost doubled"!
Basically I don't agree with his or your approach - if you use CO2e then it is invalid to say the climate sensitivity for CO2e is somehow lower - any reduction in CO2e climate sensitivity will be offset by the fact that CO2e is doubling at a faster rate than plain old CO2!
Its a classic gish gash - the people who say CO2 can have no effect because it is a trace gas are often the very same people then say it has 'doubled' (i.e. 'look there is so much more of it!') yet the temperature hasn't gone up much.
