The argument, the way I understood it, is that the models already include effects you mention (the impact of the clouds is already correctly modeled) and even t

The argument, the way I understood it, is that the models already include effects you mention (the impact of the clouds is already correctly modeled) and even the dust impact is modeled, but that the parameters of the models represent the dust incorrectly, and they explicitly mention that such an impact to the clouds could also be reconsidered in the models: "Accounting for this missing coarse dust increases the TOA coarse dust warming by about 0.15 W·m−2 (0.10 to 0.24 W·m−2), increases the fertilization of ocean ecosystems by dust deposition, and affects the distribution of global clouds and precipitation. Therefore, climate models must account for the missing coarse dust to accurately simulate its impact on clouds, biogeochemistry, and global climate." But we already know that the models are already quite good, it seems it's just a possibility where some adjustments could be considered. What most people who comment about the models miss is that the climate models don't predict the exact outcome (e.g. "what will be weather in the area X in N years", but are there to make a simulation of the outcomes that could be expected. To compare with something now easier to relate to for everybody, it's like you can simulate the speed of the spread of the virus across a population where different people have different numbers of contacts, and you can have an acceptably good model of how many people have how many contacts (some contact a lot of people, some only a few) and how fast the infection will spread even if you can't predict which persons will actually be infected when. These kind of adjustments then often don't change significantly the outcome one expects to verify, even if the parameters inside are, observed there, different.