this is too convoluted for me. can we try this?

first, I want to talk about how the paper characterizes CO2 as a weak GHG. can we talk about that without bringing other stuff up?

if you say "you can't because it's necessary" then at least try to bring the bare minimum of other subjects when talking about something specific. rotate around one argument. I'm not saying you will, I'm just handling this preemptively. please.

I would like to talk about "the ~30 watts/m^2 CO2 actually prevents from being emitted" after we conclude the characterization of CO2 as a weak GHG.