I have been attempting to understand your vituperative outburst against a scientists peer-reviewed paper presenting established and verifiable data. As well as why you would resort to using the derogatory verbiage including “moron”, “jerk” or implying the author is somehow not a scientist.

I am unable to comprehend why it was necessary to respond in the manner in which your opinion was framed, as Professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis NEVER made the assertions we should not (collectively) “clean up our garbage”, and I see no evidence the author EVER suggested not to clean up human-caused pollution.

In point-of-fact, Dr. Koutsoyiannis’ conclusions are presented here:

”The results of the analyses in this paper provide negative answers to the research questions posed in the Introduction. Specifically:

* From modern instrumental carbon isotopic data of the last 40 years, no signs of human (f****l f**l) CO2 emissions can be discerned;

* Proxy data since the Little Ice Age suggest that the modern period of instrumental data does not differ, in terms of the net isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 sources and sinks, from earlier centuries.
Combined with earlier studies, namely [2,3,4,5,31], these findings allow for the following line of thought to be formulated, which contrasts the dominant climate narrative, on the basis that different lines of thought are beneficial for the progress of science, even though they are not welcomed by those with political agendas promoting the narratives (whose representatives declare that they “own the science”, as can be seen in the motto in the beginning of the paper).

* In the 16th century, Earth entered a cool climatic period, known as the Little Ice Age, which ended at the beginning of the 19th century; Immediately after, a warming period began, which has lasted until now. The causes of the warming must be analogous to those that resulted in the Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD, the Roman Climate Optimum around the first centuries BC and AD, the Minoan Climate Optimum at around 1500 BC, and other warming periods throughout the Holocene; As a result of the recent warming, and as explained in [5], the biosphere has expanded and become more productive, leading to increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and greening of the Earth [17,18,19,32];

* As a result of the increased CO2 concentration, the isotopic signature δ13C in the atmosphere has decreased;
The greenhouse effect on the Earth remained stable in the last century, as it is dominated by the water vapour in the atmosphere [31];

* Human CO2 emissions have played a minor role in the recent climatic evolution, which is hardly discernible in observational data and unnecessary to invoke in modelling the observed behaviours, including the change in the isotopic signature δ13C in the atmosphere.

* Overall, the findings in this paper confirm the major role of the biosphere in the carbon cycle (and through this in climate) and a non-discernible signature of humans.

* One may associate the findings of the paper with several questions related to international policies.
— Do these results refute the hypothesis that CO2 emissions contribute to g****l w*****g through the greenhouse effect?
— Do these findings, by suggesting a minimal human impact on the isotopic composition of atmospheric carbon, contradict the need to reduce CO2 emissions?
— Are human carbon emissions independent from other forms of pollution, such as emissions of fine particles and nitrogen oxides, which can have harmful effects on human health and the environment?

These questions are not posed at all in the paper and certainly are not studied in it.

Therefore, they cannot be answered on a scientific basis within the paper’s confined scope but require further research.”

As a point: It looks like Dr. Koutsoyiannis has presented data that would lead to further investigations and increased observations of other potential climate-altering gases or possibly water vapor.

I (and hopefully others) look forward to viewing any original research papers you might provide to the scientific community — rather than a parroting of the currently held and “politically-correct” anthropomorphic-only climate degradation model.

It is not a reasonable outcome if personal beliefs get in the way of objectively assessing presented evidence.

According to my Crystal Ball of Vision:

Many fertile women of means will flee Red states restricting their health-care.
Many of them will not be leaving alone.
Population shifts recorded in the next Census will change the number of congressmen needed to represent them.
The majority could change toward states gaining in population.
.
.
.
Population declines in Red States... their economy declines
until they surrender to a power greater than them...
Girl Power.

lol