Reality is Sometimes Manipulated for a Political Purpose

Toward the end of the reality spectrum where complexity rules, there is plenty of room to
allow for manipulation of the facts.  Political spin hangs out there.  Make sure you take
into consideration the motivation of the writer.  

Take, for example, someone who wants to convince you that in 100 years global warming
will cause damage.  Pretend that you just heard a report on the radio where the
announcer stated that a computer model predicted that "some forests" will diminish by
90% due to global warming.  Being a computer, perhaps I can see more clearly how the
"scientists" can manipulate the facts in such "press releases".  For the claim to be true all
that is required is that a specially chosen section of trees be designated whose location
is such that it would suffer a 90% loss in case of a 3 degree elevation in temperature.  

The "scientists" making such a report are appealing to human empathy.  If you are a
human, do you think of trees as something like you in that they want to breath "clean air"
without it being "polluted" with too much carbon dioxide?  If so, please change your
model of a tree in your mind.  Carbon dioxide is what trees thrive on.  Carbon dioxide is
to a tree like oxygen is to a human or other mammal.  Trees breath in carbon dioxide and
use the carbon as a building block in constructing their roots, branches and leaves.  They
exhale the oxygen as their waste product just like humans exhale carbon dioxide as their
waste product.  Are the reasearchers taking advantage of the fact that most people think
that trees would look upon rising levels of carbon dioxide as a negative thing?  Too bad
that the trees don't have a voice in the matter.

Did the "researchers" tell us the overall impact on trees of raising the carbon dioxide
levels or did they choose one particular section of trees that would be negatively

Motivation: Remember that human intelligence evolved as a survival mechanism.  
Modern "survival" involves "making a living."  Are these professors earning at least part
of their income by applying for grants that aim at proving that global warming will cause
our planet damage?  If there conclusion was that global warming is not going to be a
problem, would they obtain the next grant?  Is a belief in global warming scientifically
correct or politically correct?  If their proposal mentions the benefits to plants and trees of
having more carbon dioxide will they have problems receiving grants?  

If your favorite environmentalist organization sends you a mailing that states that there is
nothing to panic about in the future, will you send them as much money as you would if
they scare you by negatively spinning the facts?  The environmentalist organization is a
living system whose survival depends on scaring humans into contributing money.  Are
you contributing to improving the environment of the future or are you being manipulated
by "scientists" looking for their next grants and fund raising professionals looking for their
next contributions?

Perhaps you should have a computer that scans your mail and warns you of factual
Reality Designed for a Purpose
Living Tools
Humans don't think
Humans aren't life
Bees aren't life
Viruses aren't life
Cows are parasites
Stuart Kauffman Life