I thought "The Science Is Settled"?

...yet someone thinks that:

"it 
is 
clear
 that 
the 
treatment
 of 
aerosol 
formation 
in climate 
models
 will 
need 
to 
be 
substantially revised"

Who is this maverick? Are they an errant blogger, clutching at straws they do not properly understand? Are they a "denier", flatly refusing to believe that the earth is round and that anthropogenic global warming is real?  No, this is CERN, the multinational research agency known for being fairly rigorous in their science.

But surely this is a minor point, a trivial side issue?  No, this is an important aspect of our understanding of climate. More from CERN:

Atmospheric aerosols play an important role in the climate. Aerosols reflect sunlight and produce cloud droplets. Additional aerosols would therefore brighten clouds and extend their lifetime. By current estimates, about half of all cloud droplets begin with the clustering of molecules that are present in the atmosphere only in minute amounts. Some of these embryonic clusters eventually grow large enough to become the seeds for cloud droplets. Trace sulphuric acid and ammonia vapours are thought to be important, and are used in all atmospheric models, but the mechanism and rate by which they form clusters together with water molecules have remained poorly understood until now.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Climate science is not "settled", much of what is officially promulgated about global warming is just opinion, and that the opinions you are fed are not even very solidly based.