Ok, here we go: First, the text you quote is identical word for word to the very dated 1996 information from NASA I just browsed. And, as I said, in the video the byline with the data is mysteriously missing. But don't take my word for it, here is a screen shot from the video, notice no byline or date under the title: And here is a screenshot of the exact same website just now from NASA showing the byline and date. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rossow_01/computer.html Hmm, I wonder who might have removed the byline and date? Now, on to your challenge about the other data. For starters I looked up the first item, the Princeton reference. It actually is a brief press release/summary of the actual paper, "Diurnal cloud cycle biases in climate models", published Dec. 2017 in Nature Communications, a very reputable journal. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02369-4 So what does it say? Well, first it isn't about cloud effects themselves, which have been known and modeled for a long time. It's about a more suble effect, the diurnal cycle of clouds (DCC). The abstract says (emphasis added): "While this model tuning does not seem to invalidate climate projections because of the limited DCC response to global warming, it may potentially increase the uncertainty of climate predictions." And the discussion (conclusion) says in part (emphasis added): "Thanks to the limited responses of DCC to global warming, such biases do not seem to invalidate future climate projection; however, they may induce an overestimation of cloud-feedback strength and distort the patters of land–ocean–atmosphere interaction." In other words, future climate projection is NOT invalidated, but possibly there could be some additional uncertainties from the influence of DCC which should be taken into account to improve the models. Hardly earth shaking, and exactly the kind of incremental improvements that occur in science all the time. So, I haven't "failed to understand" or "missed" anything at all. I simply went to the original sources and found that the first two items I looked into are certainly not what the narrator dramatically claims is a "rebellion" against climate science. The video author is grossly exaggerating, at the very least. Par for the course with much on You Tube.