Whoever wrote this is reporting something, not necessarily advocating a position on scientific issues. Arguing that cloud formation is important isn't so different from arguing that sunspots or any other factor is important.
Who knows? Maybe it is. It's certainly a valid hypothesis that could be studied.
And how could you miss this, possibly an admission that climate change isn't "settled science," right in the article?
The perception that climate science is solved is an inadvertent result of pressure on climatologists to convey a simple message to the public for instance, that all dry regions will get dryer and all wet regions wetter in a warming climate, says Piers Forster, a climate modeller at the University of Leeds, UK. That has made the science sound somewhat dull, he says.
They want to replace their cosmetologists with cosmologists?
Sounds like they’re admitting their stupid models don’t work.
They need to just eliminate climate science and replace the entire field with climate physics. How in the world can dryer climates get dryer and wetter climates get wetter in a warming climate ? Those two situations are diametrically opposed. In a warming climate everything gets wetter because of greater evaporation from oceans and large lakes. For example the immense rains in So Cal caused by the 1998 El Nino. In a cooling climate everything gets dryer because of less evaporation from oceans and large lakes. For example So Cal in present day because the earth has been cooling.