Irenes notion is an example, however the effects on the clouds can be so many and derive from so many sources that the path to explaining a phenomenon is diverging from the path of observing it. When science becomes argumentative, and unnecessary iterative it fails as much as when it fails to provide a sound and reproducible explanation to a phenomenon.
The problem is often the absence of reason in science, which is not dependent on education and number of publications. A person can have a far more clear understanding and reason than a scientist even not being a scientist, if that person has contemplated phenomena for long enough time, and has interests in what she/he observes. The scientist however can go to length of debating the evident and perhaps even neglecting crucial facts until the next generation comes and replaces them with new views. It is not the the reproducibility of science and its methods that I question, it is the reaction of the scientist to anything new. Two types of scientist result mainly: One that attacks the new findings with doubt, skepticism and criticism, the second with openness and calmness.
I think the former is a necessary scientist for revelaing fraud-related "science" such as promises of things that cannot be true in commercial and self-evident environmental problems. However, when ideas are generated, the presence of such critical scientist is devastating, because their sole response is to kill whatever is new, without even being inspired. This is where egos of scientist emerge, and resemble egos of musicians and artists. They may be critical of others inventions, however if enough time passes the inventions have suddenly migrated over to the the skepticists as "ideas to be tested". If the ideas survive, they even generate new sub-ideas and projects in the original scientist who was formerly critical and skeptical.
Thus, criticism and blind neglection of new ideas is a waste of energy and time, because if an idea is right, it will survive with or without the criticism. The role of these destructive scientists is in defending the borders of sound science, but they have nothing to do in the developing of science, because developments come from ideas that rarely agree with contemporary views.
The scientist have therefore a personal responsibility to disseminate science with patience and openness, and accept other views without going to war all the time.
It is the "guerrier" aspect of science which generates the contiguous debates of science that never end, and that cost billlions of tax payers money, as in the case of CFC gases in the 80s and ozone, DDTs in the 70s and infertility in birds and animals, dioxins in the 60s at industrial sites destroying entire ecosystems, Lead in the pain in the 50s damaging health and one can nearly go back in 10-year cycles to see the absurdities of science caused by endless debate and not following "a straight-ling between two points" in order to conclude if something is working or not.
Sergio