VincentRJ

And my point was that no life-form can exist in a non-predatory environment, as far as I understand. Every life-form is either directly predatory, or indirectly predatory in the sense they rely upon others (whether microbes, insects, animals, or humans) to do the killing on their behalf.

That's an interesting concept. If one uses the broad definition of 'predatory', which includes "seeking to exploit others', then it would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to discover any form of life which is not predatory. For example, vegetarians might feel good because they don't rely upon the killing of other animals for their survival. However, they do rely upon the killing of plants, and the plants rely upon trillions of predatory microbes, ants, worms, fungi, and so on, in the soil, which provide the necessary nutrients in the soil, for the plants to grow. Some plants are directly predatory. Consider the following link: https://www.bbcearth.com/news/10-of-the-planets-most-predatory-plants Also, many species of fungi, are predaceous. Fungi perform important functions within the soil in relation to nutrient cycling, disease suppression and water dynamics, all of which help plants become healthier and more vigorous. Along with bacteria, fungi are important decomposers of hard to digest organic matter. From the following wiki link: "Carnivorous fungi or predaceous fungi are fungi that derive some or most of their nutrients from trapping and eating microscopic or other minute animals. More than 200 species have been described, belonging to the phyla Ascomycota, Mucoromycotina, and Basidiomycota. They usually live in soil and many species trap or stun nematodes, while others attack amoebae or collembola." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivorous_fungus In summary, most people who eat fish and meat, do not kill the animals themselves, but rely upon others to do the killing. Likewise, whilst most plants are not directly predatory, they all rely upon massive numbers of predatory 'soil animals' to provide the essential nutrient for them to survive and flourish.

Good quote, which highlights the problem. "It's an established fact...'', in other words 'the science is settled'. Many people believe that. It's the new religion. The continued existence of the IPCC organization is based upon an assumption that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are bad for the climate, so claiming it is an established fact is understandable, and is required for continued funding, or increased funding. However, you should also pay attention the the following part of the quote; '..have led to an increased frequency and/or intensity of some weather and climate extremes'. I checked the details in the AR6 report which you linked, to find what those 'some weather and climate extremes' are. Here are a few quotes from the report. Temperatures Extremes "The additional observational records, along with a stronger warming signal, show very clearly that changes observed at the time of AR5 (IPCC, 2014) continued, providing strengthened evidence of an increase in the intensity and frequency of hot extremes and decrease in the intensity and frequency of cold extremes." Now that does seem very worrying. Since the previous report (AR5), the evidence that shows an increase in hot extremes, has strengthened. My Gosh! That is alarming. But wait! The strengthened evidence also shows that there has been a decrease in the intensity and frequency of cold extremes. There is so much evidence available on the internet which shows that a far greater number of people die from extreme cold than from extreme heat, globally. If this is true, then an increase in heat waves, linked to a decrease in cold waves, should be beneficial. Wouldn't you agree? "Floods There is low confidence about peak flow trends over past decades on the global scale , but there are regions experiencing increases, including parts of Asia, Southern South America, north-east USA, north-western Europe, and the Amazon, and regions experiencing decreases, including parts of the Mediterranean, Australia, Africa, and south-western USA." Droughts "Some AR6 regions show a decrease in meteorological drought, including Northern Australia, Central Australia, Northern Europe and Central North America (Section 11.9). Other regions either do not show substantial trends in long-term meteorological drought, or they display mixed signals depending on the considered time frame and sub-regions, such as in Southern Australia (Gallant et al., 2013; Delworth and Zeng, 2014; Alexander and Arblaster, 2017; Spinoni et al., 2019; Dunn et al., 2020;" If you read the details in the linked AR6 report, you should see that there are a lot of uncertainties regarding the trends and the degree of changes in extreme weather events, globally, so I would suggest that this uncertainty contradicts the beginning of the quote, 'It is an established fact..." This will be my last post in this thread because it feels like I'm trying to convince a person who believes in a Creator God, that there is no sound scientific evidence for the existence of a Creator God. Such discussions can be endless, so what's the point?

Nothing. I wasn't addressing temperature predictions. I was addressing the claimed consequences of a gradual warming trend which is causing great alarm, especially amongst children and the scientifically illiterate. Scientists who are political activists are promoting an existential threat, and the media latches on to that, claiming that every extreme weather event is caused by anthropogenic climate change. The IPCC, for example, have stated in their previous reports, that climate is a complex, chaotic and non-linear system and that predictions are very 'challenging'. They now use the term 'projection' instead of 'prediction', as a consequence. They've also stated in previous reports, in their scientific summaries, not their political summaries, that there is low confidence that extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and hurricanes, are increasing on a global scale. "And your link looks like just another attempt at cherry-picking. Or is all of Australia contained in the Brisbane-Ipswich areas What about, say, Western Australia?" I've just checked the history of floods in WA, and the first government site that came up, begins with the following statement: "Since the mid-1960s Western Australia has been experiencing below average annual rainfall and has had relatively little major flooding especially in the more populated areas of the south-west." https://www.water.wa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/5313/11445.pdf However, this report is dated July 2000, so it doesn't include the most recent flood that has occurred during this triple La Nina event. This latest flood is claimed by the media to be a 'one in a hundred year flood'. If this is true, then the logical conclusion is that one hundred years ago, when CO2 levels were much lower, there was an equally bad, or worse flood, which means that the flood is not necessarilly a consequence of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Got it?

What predictions and by whom? Can you answer that? Here's one example, that I've personally experienced. During the Millennium Drought in Queensland, Australia, from 1997 to 2009, there were a number of proposed projects to build more dams to prepare for the future flooding, because Australia has a well-known history of droughts and floods. However, during this drought, a major advisor to the Australian government, who was a so-called climate expert, named Tim Flannery, advised that such droughts would become more prominent and extended due to Climate Change, and that there would be little purpose in building new dams because they would never fill. As a result of this advice, desalination plants were built instead. Then in 2010-11, massive flooding events occurred, causing billions of dollars of damage, and the desalination plants were placed in hibernation. If the proposed dams had been built, there would have been much less damage to homes and properties, and perhaps none at all. The flood, of course, was described by the media as unprecedented, and the worst on record. Curious, as I usually am, I checked the BOM records, and was amazed to discover that the flood was not the worst on record, but the 7th worst. In other words, there were 6 previous, worse, floods going back to the worst flood that occurred in 1841. Of course, the degree of flooding was not the same throughout the state of Queensland. In some areas the flooding was only the 5th worst. Here's a detailed record of the history of flooding in the Brisbane and Ipswich areas, if you're interested. http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml

My belief is in the effectiveness of the scientific method which must include experimentation which has to be replicable if the theory is correct, and falsifiable if the theory is wrong, so of course any interpretation of data which contradicts my belief (in the methodology of science) causes me to be skeptical. The evidence that the Earth, overall, has been in a slight warming trend during the past 100-150 years is probably correct and I don't dispute that, although I am aware of the enormous difficulty of getting a continuous and accurate, average, temperature of the entire planet, including land, sea and atmosphere, over that 150 year period. Since I'm relatively unbiased, unlike alarmists, I consider both the positive and negative aspects of the current warming trend. I haven't yet seen any reliable evidence that shows the claimed 1.1 C rise in average global temperature during a 150 year period is anything to worry about. If the temperature in my house were to rise by only 1.1 degrees C during the course of just one day, I wouldn't even notice it.

What's also significant is that elevated CO2 levels allow plants to grow much better in drier areas. That's because increases in CO2 levels reduce the size of the leaf spores which allow evaporation. With smaller spores (or stomata) the plants lose less water from evaporation and therefore need less water to grow. Whilst a doubling of atmospheric CO2, from say 300 to 600 ppm, or 600 ppm to 1200 ppm, causes approximately a 35% increase in plant growth under normal water conditions, the increase in plant growth under water-stressed conditions results in a 65% increase in plant growth. This is no doubt at least part of the reason why the southern part of the Sahara Desert, known as the Sahel, has been greening in recent decades. Here's an article that provides details. https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mueller-sahel.pdf "In spite of the gloomy predictions of even more frequent and severe droughts and famines caused by global warming, vegetation in the Sahel has significantly increased in the last three decades." "Climate scientists do not agree how the future climate of the Sahara and the Sahel will look like. Some climate models simulate a decrease in rainfall; others – for example Haarsma et al mentioned above – predict an increase in rainfall. According to Professor Claussen, North Africa is the area of greatest disagreement among climate scientists. Claussen explains that forecasting how global warming will affect the Sahel is complicated by the region’s vast size and the unpredictable influence of high-altitude winds that disperse monsoon rains. Claussen has considered the likelihood of a greening of the Sahara due to global warming and concluded that an expansion of vegetation into today’s Sahara is possible as a consequence of CO2 emissions."

Don't be silly! If you chop down forests to mine Lithium for car batteries, or for timber to burn because you are lacking coal resources, or to get access to the forest to build windmills, or build solar farms on rich grasslands, or build new roads and housing estates, then obviously those areas are becoming less green. The satellite imagery show that the total amount of greening of the land has increased by an area equivalent to the USA, despite the numerous areas where greening has been reduced due to human activity. Crikey! Got it?

Of course I understand the concepts of trends. Climate always changes over any given period of time. It changes locally and globally. However,the change is never 100% coherent, globally. There will always be certain areas which are cooling, whilst other areas are warming, and there will always be some areas that are becoming drier whilst other areas are becoming wetter. What you don't seem to understand is the complexity of the situation and that the role played in the current warming, by increases in minuscule amounts of a trace gas, such as CO2, cannot be accurately quantified, and that future predictions of changes in climate are unlikely to be accurate, and that many past predictions from the Alarmists have already been proved wrong. However, what can be accurately quantified are the benefits of increased CO2 levels for plant growth and crop production. We can apply the true scientific method by experimenting with crop growth in true greenhouses. No computer models are required. Satellite imagery has also shown that during the past 30 years, the additional greening of the planet due to the increase in atmospheric CO2, is equivalent to an area the size of the USA. CO2 is one of the essential molecules for the existence of all life. For God's sake, get real!!

I think it's you who is confused. I was addressing the flaw in the following article you linked. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2 "No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era. "This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years." The point I've been making is that warm and cold periods are never globally coherent, whether in the past or the present, although it makes sense that the degree of the 'lack of global coherency' is never the same at any given point in time. The greatest threat to humanity in the future (exluding the possibility of a World War 3), is the foolish notion that we can make the climate of the planet benign by reducing our emissions of C02 from fossil fuels. The historical records from the fairly recent past, say 3,000 years, which include proxy records from tree rings and sediments, newspaper articles, the memories of indiginous populations, and so on, indicate that sudden and rapid changes in climate have destroyed past civilizations, or at least made life very uncomfortable. Imagine what it would be like if we had another 39 year drought in South Eastern Australia when energy supplies were unreliable and expensive due to the move towards unreliable renewables, and the shutting down of coal and gas plants. We need to protect ourselves from the recurrence of known, extreme weather events of the past. To do this requires plentiful supplies of cheap energy, in order to build more elevated roads, strengthen people's homes, relocate homes that were foolishly built in flood plains, build more dams, reshape the landscape, and so on.

Far more than one glacier is advancing. I'm not disputing that we are currently in a warming phase, and that more glaciers are retreating than advancing. I'm making the point that the current rate of warming is not uniform and synchronous, globally, and not unprecedented, and that there have been fare worse and much more sudden 'changes in climate' in the past. For example, studies of ice cores from Law Dome in the Antarctic have provided a 1,000 year history of droughts in Australia, indicating that the worst drought in that 1,000 year period occured during the Medieval Warm Period in the 12th century AD, and was 39 years long.

Didn't I mention in my previous post that warming and cooling periods are never completely synchronous, globaly? Your linked article fails to mention that there's also no 'sound and reliable' evidence for globally coherent warming during the industrial era. For example, whilst most glaciers might be melting and receding, the Hubbard Glacier, which is the largest glacier on the North American Continent, has been advancing for more than 100 years and has twice closed the entrance to Russell Fiord during the last 16 years by squeezing and pushing submarine glacial sediments across the mouth of the fiord. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/fs-001.03.pdf Here's another example of an advancing glacier. "No one in the world has seen a glacier grow from virtually the very first snowflake. The 25-year-old Tulutsa Glacier is the fastest growing new glacier in the world. While most of mountain glaciers are shrinking or disappearing because of global warming, this US glacier keeps advancing at an accelerated pace." "Over the recent decades this baby glacier grew into the Hulk it is today and it’s growing in thickness by up to 15 meters per year." https://www.severe-weather.eu/cryosphere/earth-youngest-glacier-healthy-cryosphere-losing-battle-global-warming-rrc/ And of course, there's the example of the Antarctic, which has a general trend of increasing ice. From the following article: https://eos.org/science-updates/new-perspectives-on-the-enigma-of-expanding-antarctic-sea-ice "The extent of Antarctic sea ice varies greatly from year to year, but 40 years of satellite records show a long-term trend. Although some Antarctic regions have experienced reductions in sea ice extent, the overall trend since 1979 shows increased ice."

That's quite correct. Most of the sea level rise (and presumable temperature rise) occurred between 20,000 and 7,000 years ago. The last Ice Age began about 2.6 millions years ago, and during that period there have been a number of Glacial Maxima and Interglacials. We are still, technically, in an Ice Age because the poles still have ice, but the warming and the sea level rise have slowed down significantly, which has presumably helped humans to create our civilizations. Why you think this point is disingenuous is very puzzling. Are you a true 'Climate Change Denier', believing that climate only changes when humans burn fossil fuels'? ???? "And from about 3000 years ago until some time after the advent of the industrial revolution, sea levels were quite stable. As was the global temperature average. Only in the last 100 years or so has the rise resumed at a much higher pace. What's more , the rate of increase is getting higher." I'm guessing you still believe in the Michael Mann Hockey Stick graph which covered up, and excluded research which shows that during the past 3,000 years, or so, there have been a number of warm periods at least as warm as the current period, and that such periods were 'approximately' global, although not perfectly synchronous. From the following article: https://est.ufba.br/sites/est.ufba.br/files/kim/medievalwarmperiod.pdf "...as revealed in the ‘Climategate’ scandal, advocates of the CO2 theory were very concerned about the strength of data that showed the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than the 20th century and that global warming had occurred naturally, long before atmospheric CO2 began to increase. The contrived elimination of the MWP and Little Ice Age by Mann et al. became known as “the hockey stick” of climate change where the handle of the hockey stick was supposed to represent constant climate until increasing CO2 levels caused global warming, the sharp bend in the lower hockey stick."

Good question, which I'll try to answer. The answer is found in the history of past changes in climate, which the alarmists can't be bothered to investigate because it's so much easier to accept what the mainstream media reports and/or what so-called scientific authorities, who are actually political activists, report. For example, whenever there is an extreme weather event, whether flood, drought, hurricane, or heatwave, how often have you heard on the news that it is the worst event since records began, or it is unprecedented? If you search for the actual, real, historical records on the internet, you'll usually find that the extreme weather event is not the worst on record, as reported, and is sometimes even the 6th, 7th or 8th worst on record. However, the mainstream media does not want to report the facts if they go against the alarmist agenda and propoganda. Bad news sells better than good news. Regarding sea level rise, it's generally accepted in the sciences of Geology, that around 20,000 years ago, at the end of the last Glacial Maximum, sea levels were at least 120 metres lower than they are today. Some studies report 130 metres lower. Those who are able to do basic maths should be able to calculate that a 120 metre rise over 20,000 years is an average rise of 6mm per year. However, for most of the time since the industrial revolution began, sea level were rising very slowly, at a rate of 1 to 2mm per year. Currently, the rate is estimated to be around 3mm per year, just half of the avarge rate over the past 20,000 years. How very alarming! ???? The attached graph of past sea level rise is from the following site. https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1506

There are always examples of islands sinking due to geological reasons, and/or erosion taking place due to poor management, such as cutting down trees on the shore line, or removing mangroves, but the data show that, on average, the islands in the Pacific are growing in size. Check out the following article. "Using rich collections of Landsat imagery, this study analyses changes in land area on 221 atolls in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Results show that, between 2000 and 2017, the total land area on these atolls has increased by 61.74 km2 (6.1 %) from 1007.60 km2 to 1069.35 km2." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213305421000059

What a load of propaganda!! It's well known that mega cities like Bangkok are at risk of subsidence. Sea level rise is trivial compared to the rate of subsidence.

Rational people would meditate, or fast, or eat a healthy diet, or exercise regularly, for a good reason. Most situations have both positive and negative attributes. For example, meditating, which can take up a lot of time, is essentially 'doing nothing'. If you've organized your affairs so you have the time to sit down doing nothing, for long periods, then that's fine. The more rational you are, the more likely you are to discover and consider both the positive and negative attributes and compare their significance. The less rational you are, the more likely you will be attached to specific qualities which you like, or which give you pleasure, and ignore the other related issues which could have disastrous consequences in the future. Buying a house with a great view, without considering the negative attributes, such as losing the house in the next flood, is irrational, unless you are very wealthy, and/or can afford the huge insurance premiums, and/or have a private helicopter which can safely remove you from any sudden flooding. But even then, where does the helicopter land? A wealthy person might not have a care in the world about losing the house, but if he's a rational person he should consider the safety of himself and his family. "I speak of irrationality as a non-rational state that is beyond the mind (not achieved by thinking)." It's not accurate to describe all mental processes as rational. If there are no mental thought processes going on, then there's neither rationality nor irrationality.

Sorry! I can't agree. A lack of rationality is a fundamental cause of most of the problems and suffering so many people experience in this world. I'll quote just one example, although I could quote hundreds. ???? A couple are searching for a home to buy and come across a suitable house on a river bank with an amazing view. Wow! The price is good. The view is good, and the house is fairly close to our current work-place. Let's buy it. However, in many areas, rivers tend to flood every few years. Since we now have an internet service which provides records of lots of historical events in the past, in numerous regions, a rational person would think, 'Before I make a decision, I'll check the historical record of flooding in this area where the house is located.' I'm sure the Buddha would also have advised that (if he were alive today), but unfortunately the desire for a nice view trumps rationality. The couple buy the home, and 3 years later it's totally destroyed by a massive flood that records show, has occurred, on average, every 20 years since records began, and that there have been even worse floods in the same area 50, 80 and a 100 years ago.

The Buddha seems to have been a very rational person to me. It's why I've been interested in Buddhism. If one separates the mystical mumbo jumbo from his basic teachings, he's encouraging a rational approach to achieving a distress-free life. Have you read the Kalama Sutta? However, I suspect the Buddha understood that for most people, the desires for pleasures, sex, tasty food, fame, vanity, wealth and power to enhance one's ego, and strong attachment to these things, and so on, were too embedded in the population, and that his enlightened teachings, appealing to the rational mind, would only penetrate a few people, which is the reason why he initially considered continuing his life, after enlightenment, in a state of meditative calm in the forest, to avoid the hassles of teaching to irrational people.

Of course, no-one can do the impossible. That's the definition of 'impossible'. However, you surely must understand from the history of the human race, that many, many things that were considered impossible in the past are now possible, and many, many concepts that could not be grasped by the rational mind in the past, can now be grasped. That's progress. I don't even think any primitive tribal person would ever think that pointing at the moon with his finger is the same as being on the moon. ????

Everything that everyone experiences is an experience within themselves, whatever the motivation, goal or circumstances. Even when a group of people are participating, cooperating, or competing, as in a football match, the individual experience of each footballer will be their own experience, and will be different, to some degree, to the experiences of the other footballers in the same game. Since everyone experiences something within themselves, the important teaching of the Buddha is 'how to think for yourself', as outlined in the Kalama Sutta. Most people too easily just accept the advice of an established authority, whether the authority is a religion, a doctor's advice, a guru's advice, investment advice, or a claimed consensus of scientists promoting fear about increasing CO2 levels. "2. You say "...when one considers that a major point in the Buddha's teachings is that the existence of a Creator God is an 'unknowable', and therefore it's a waste of time speculating on its existence and characteristics." I think there is confusion on this point. The stress of that sentence should be on the word SPECULATING, because that's indeed a trap. Speculating is thinking, and thinking comes from the mind. So, it's a waste of time thinking about the unknowable, but that doesn't imply that one shouldn't use other ways to connect with the unknowable that don't include thinking. I'm talking about meditation. When you manage to keep your thoughts on a leash, you free and open yourself to different vibes, so to speak. And that's one of the most basic Buddhist teachings: that words are nothing compared to personal experience. Yes, the Godhead is unknowable for us, but that shouldn't stop us from trying." Wow! 'Words are nothing compared to personal experience.' What are you trying to say?? ???? All animals have personal experiences in order to survive. To flee from danger requires an experience of danger. However, humans are unique in the sense that we not only have a capacity for experience, but also a capacity for words that describe those experiences. Without that capacity for words we would still be like Monkeys and Apes. Even the most primitive tribes that still exist in remote places, have words, although relatively few words and no writing. As tribes or civilizations develop, more words are created in order to avoid confusing different entities as the same thing. For example, a primitive tribe might have just one word for all trees. Whilst they can probably see a difference between different species of trees, they haven't got around to creating new words to define those different species of trees. Meditation obviously can have benefits, resulting in a peaceful and calm mind, and a release from all the hustle and bustle of normal, human activity. However, using the strict meditation guidlines employed in certain retreats and advocated by certain gurus, can have harmful effects for certain people with pre-existing psychological problems. I believe some retreats require visitors to sign a documant stating that they have had no previous psychological problems, before they are accepted to begin meditation practice. Since a goal of Buddhist meditation is a cessation of all thoughts, whilst still being aware, it does make sense that no words could accurately describe such an experience. Words are thoughts. No thoughts mean no words.

I think it's rational to presume that nobody has any real and precise evidence of what the Buddha experienced in his meditation. In order to get such evidence, you would not only need to have some miraculous ability to get inside someone's mind and experience exactly what they are experiencing, but also to get inside the mind of a person who died around 2,500 years ago. Are you aware that there are no written records dating to the time of the Buddha's life? Everything we know about the Buddha has been passed down by memory over several generations. After about 400 years, those memories were first recorded in the Pali script, in Sri Lanka, during the first century BCE. The story about the Creator God, Brahma, persuading the Buddha to teach what he'd learned during his ascetic wanderings and meditation, seems very puzzling when one considers that a major point in the Buddha's teachings is that the existence of a Creator God is an 'unknowable', and therefore it's a waste of time speculating on its existence and characteristics. That the story is propaganda, to assist the Buddha to teach and integrate into a Vedic environment where most people believed in a Creator God, is the best explanation I can think of. Perhaps you have a better explanation. ????

Once again, we need to precise with our definitions. There's a distinction between Brahma and Brahman. Brahma is the Hindu (or Vedic) creator of the universe, that is, a Creator God. 'Brahman' is a metaphysical concept that connotes the highest universal principle, and/or the 'ultimate reality' in the universe, and/or the 'binding unity behind all diversity'. Buddhism initially evolved in this Vedic environment, and the teachings of the Buddha were opposed to some of the Vedic beliefs, in particular, the concept of a Creator god and a permanent soul, which obviously would create problems. In order to surmount such problems, a story was created about the Buddha's thoughts soon after he achieved enlightenment, He wondered if there would be any point in teaching his insights, because most people would be incapable of understanding such profound insights because they were so attached to material possessions, emotional pleasures, vanity, ego, greed, and power. He thought, perhaps he should spend the rest of his life in peaceful calm in the forest. However, according to the story, the Buddha changed his opinion when the Creator God, Brahma, descended into his consciousness, and implored him to teach his great wisdom, because at least a few people would understand his message, which Brahma accepted as true. Can you see the propaganda in this story? If the Buddha were to attempt to teach his enlightened views to a population who believed in a Creator God and a permanent soul, he probably wouldn't achieve much success. However, if that Creator God, Brahma, were to bow to the Buddha and encourage him to teach, then his success would be greater. And it was greater, because a new religion was created.

Corruption is never acceptable. However, there are sometimes positive aspects. In this case, the police are basically saying, pay us (for example) 30,000 baht, or we'll arrest you and charge you for your crime, and you'll pay (possibly) 500,000 baht in lawer's fees to defend yourself, and the Thai coverment will spend 500,000 baht in prosecuting you, and if you are convicted, the Thai government will spend a million or several million baht, supporting you during your jail sentence. Which is better from a purely economic point of view for the Thai government, as well as the perpetrator?

As long as we continue emitting CO2, the planet will be okay. Plants love CO2. It's their food. Without it, they all die. Without CO2, no life would exist. What a terrible pollutant is CO2. ???? (sarc)