There's an excellent post by Zeke Hausfather at Yale Climate Forum. It's written as a layman's explanation of the controversy.
I was struck by this bit:
Dessler begins quite clearly by pointing out how "the usual way to think about clouds in the climate system is that they are a feedback — as the climate warms, clouds change in response and either amplify (positive cloud feedback) or ameliorate (negative cloud feedback) the initial change."
He suggests that Spencer and Braswell's formulation — that clouds are both a cause of and feedback on climate change — is rather outside of current norms.
Doesn't this just sum up the problem with climatology - that new ideas, particularly from those outside the mainstream, are seen as a problem rather than a possible step forward?