Climate hoax couldn't have happened without the media. After 20 years of brainwashing, you could accept cats on a menu as well

• "William M. Gray is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Atmospheric Science at CSU."

12/21/10, "Mainstream media helps to brainwash," Coloradoan.com, William Gray

• "I view Swartz and Peterson as representative of a large group of

intelligent and concerned citizens who have been (or allowed themselves to be) brainwashed by what they have heard over and over again for the last 20 years from an uncritical mainstream media.

The mainstream media have not well served the public on this topic. They have yet to dig deep and ask the tough questions.

As guardians of openness and the truth, the mainstream media have let the public down by not presenting the other side of the warming issue. They have primarily echoed the continuous self-serving carbon dioxide climate degradation statements emanating from our country's scientific, environmental, and political elites.

These statements mostly have been unsupported climate speculations, exaggerations and untruths.

Warming groups have a vested interest in the carbon dioxide warming threat.

• Scientists can garner federal grants.
  

• Environmentalists can use global warming to exert greater pressure on corporations.

• Politicians can use the warming scare to increase their control over our lives, elevate the role of the government and increase their power.

A broad ranging "group think" or "herd mentality" has developed.

If I had not spent 57 years (last 49 at Colorado State University) studying, forecasting and teaching meteorology-climate and only knew about climate from what I've read/heard in the mainstream media and in government pronouncements, I likely would have had similar warming concerns as Swartz and Peterson and millions of other Americans

• whose climate knowledge has been shaped by mainstream media.

But the knowledge I have accumulated during a long career does not permit me to accept these carbon dioxide induced warming pronouncements as being realistic.

I know of other more plausible nature processes which give more credible explanations of the global climate changes which have occurred during the last 150 years.

Thousands of our country's older and more experienced meteorologists have similar opinions as mine. There has yet to be a broad, open and honest scientific debate of the likely influence on climate by rising levels of carbon dioxide

• by our country's most knowledgeable specialists.

I am not saying that a doubling carbon dioxide, by the end of the 21st century will have an influence on our global climate, however. Doubling carbon dioxide should cause an increase in the globe's hydrologic cycle (precipitation) of 3 percent to 4 percent.

But we should experience little global warming. Certainly not the 2 to 5 degrees Celsius warming

• projected by the global models whose handling of the globe's hydrologic cycle is greatly flawed and causes them
  

• to simulate grossly unrealistic high warming numbers.

The climate changes induced by carbon dioxide are likely to be more beneficial

• than detrimental for humankind at least for the next 50 to 100 years."

via Tom Nelson