Once again, there is reason to report on the inadequate reporting in the ORF documentary.
On the occasion of the "International Conference on Climate and Energy" 2024 in Vienna, the participants learned about the
manipulative climate journalism to which ORF also subscribes.
On the occasion of this conference
Kla.TV today excerpts from an informative lecture by Dr. Bernhard Strehl, an entrepreneur
and physicist for atomic and radiation physics.
He became the red rag of Austrian climate researchers thanks to his more than 50 well-founded lectures on the subject of climate.
During the coronavirus crisis, Strehl and his friends founded the IMMUN association in a
double sense - medically and legally speaking.
Through many legal interventions at administrative court level, Strehl learned that you don't have to be a lawyer to be able
to represent someone at the administrative court in Austria.
By his own account, he has already represented many people free of charge and has
gained experience in over 20 proceedings to date.
Strehl is known for his clear revelations.
That's why the entire press in Austria is trying to silence him with buzzwords like Nazi and right-wing radical. So
how does climate propaganda by the mainstream media work?
Watch Dr. Strehl's extremely informative presentation in an abridged version entitled:
Climate propaganda in Austria. We counter.
(Bernhard Strehl:) ... this word "climate heating" has only really existed since the end of the coronavirus crisis.
Suddenly the word, at least here in Austria, "climate heating" came up.
Before it was always called global warming.
This has been the case since the 80s.
Then it suddenly became a little weaker.
Then suddenly there was talk of climate change.
I suspect that Climategate played a certain role in this. Because some of the mass media also realized that
there was something wrong with this climate science.
And now, recently, this has been taken to an extreme. Now we have climate heating and climate hell.
And UN Secretary-General Guterres took the cake - "global cooking".
I quote his sentence here:
"The era of global warming is over. The era of global cooking has begun."
And I have the original.
I will now show you what he really said back then:
"The era of global warming has ended.
The era of global boiling has arrived.
The air is unbreathable.
The heat is unbearable.
And the level of fossil fuel profits and climate inaction is unacceptable."
(...) But he just said a few things.
"The air is unbreathable. And the heat is unbearable."
And what surprised me the most: He said this in front of the entire UN General Assembly, in July last year (2023).
And there was a lot of media present and that was simply accepted.
Nobody said anything.
And I would now like to quote Will Happer: "What has he smoked?"
Let's go further now.
Another relatively new word is climate crisis.
Now everything is just a crisis.
And I am also a climate crisis denier of all media in Austria.
And all those who now say, wait a minute, that could be a bit different, are really
immediately labeled deniers, climate crisis deniers.
We know exactly why this is used.
This is of course used because there are Holocaust deniers and we are put in the same corner.
We have something very sneaky in the German-speaking world.
This is the so-called Climate Journalism Network.
There are several hundred journalists and media people working there.
It specifies which words must be used.
Climate change is no longer used, it is far too harmless.
The word climate crisis must be used.
This gives you a kind of dictionary of permitted formulations so that it comes across as dramatically as possible.
And I mention this because editors from ORF are also involved.
And it will then come straight to why this is relevant. (...)
And then of course there's social media, where young people in particular are more or less
locked in and only get everything from social media.
We also have alternative media in Austria.
(...) They have a very good range.
However, the general public avoids these media because they are also labeled as right-wing extremist.
And the worst thing in Austria is the schools and universities.
Pure propaganda, indoctrination and ideology...
Now that is unbelievable.
Unbelievable what's happening!
I don't understand at all how this is possible. For me, these are no longer universities.
I was still studying at a university, at the Vienna University of Technology.
But what is happening nowadays, actually since Bologna, since they introduced this
system, these are no longer universities for me.
Because freedom of research and freedom of teaching no longer exist, at least not since corona.
Now I would like to briefly mention state broadcasting, because we are taking action against it.
In our country it is called Österreichischer Rundfunk - ORF.
And he has these channels: ORF1, ORF 2 and ORF III.
Here you can still receive the state media from Germany very well and then, of course, lots of private channels.
I just want to show - this is this year's survey, the reach of these stations from March.
That's about 40 now.
If we take a closer look at the top 10, so to speak, we can see that:
ORF 2 has the largest reach, with 20% of Austrians watching it every day.
That's because the so-called "news" is on.
So that's where the rational propaganda comes in, so to speak.
ORF 1 is the other one.
And then interestingly, this is really interesting, in third place is the critical channel ServusTV on a par with ZDF.
And if you take a closer look, ORF III is missing.
I spoke to these people on the phone to find out why. There is a company that collects this data. Why isn't ORF III included?
With a fine excuse, because it's a very expensive, small channel from ORF: "It's so young,
you have to protect it from the quota pressure."
But it has been in operation for 15 years.
But I found out in conversation with them that ORF III is at 2.8%. (...) It's clear to me why they want to suppress that.
They have a huge budget and that doesn't really justify this range at all.
And they want to cover it up in this way. (...)
And how does propaganda work now and what does it want to achieve?
It actually wants to achieve consent - namely for what the powerful or the government wants.
The buzzword is "manufacturing consent".
I say: "Consent is fabricated".
So you influence people so that they agree to what you want them to agree to.
And how does that work?
It's all about emotions.
You always have emotions inside, because they switch off critical thinking, they block it.
That is something very dangerous, because we cannot defend ourselves against it.
You then get the information into our subconscious.
And the consciousness cannot switch it off. (...)
It's quite evil what's being done and it's in conjunction with censorship.
Because once you have pre-programmed people in a certain direction, so to speak, you have to prevent them
from hearing a different opinion or a different insight.
There are very famous experiments that you can influence people to act against their own convictions, so to speak.
But if just one person in the test group suddenly takes the opposite view, they drop out again in large numbers.
That's why we are all censored.
A very narrow so-called opinion corridor is created.
It's the emotions. And it doesn't matter which emotions.
These can be quite positive, such as enthusiasm and euphoria and so on.
And what is important for us now, especially when it comes to the climate, is this "I'm one of the good
guys; I'm the most well-behaved climate protector".
That's why they all play along.
- Of course there are also negative emotions - hatred, very important.
The most important emotion for switching off thinking is fear.
And that is why fear is always the first thing to be produced.
Because of these mechanisms, everyone else who is now of my opinion, where I am now of the opinion that I
have the right opinion, everyone else is the bad guy.
So I'm with the good guys and the others are the bad guys.
And that is played out quite well.
They have been practicing for over 100 years.
That depends on the target groups, of course.
So different people react differently to messages.
However, fear is something all-encompassing.
You can use fear if you can generate it, it's great.
It immediately switches off critical thinking.
The decisive factor is that you have to combine everything correctly.
Then you get the optimum effect.
I am someone who goes to our opponents.
I go to the events of the climate sect, the climate ayatollahs, as I call them.
Their presentations are structured in such a way that the first thing they always do is create fear.
So terrible, climate hell and all that's coming, and the floods are increasing.
And then comes the next step. And then they say: We are to blame.
We actually means you are to blame, i.e. those who listen. Then everyone feels guilty.
And then you say: But now the Savior is coming, he will tell you what you have to do.
There is something I can contribute to solving the problem.
I can help to ensure that this terrible thing does not happen.
I just have to protect the climate.
I have to drive an electric car, for example, because I'm protecting the climate.
And I am the one who is doing something good, I am one of the good guys.
That is the point. That's how it works.
I have listened to this at several lectures.
This is really quite brutal NLP = neuro-linguistic programming.
And people are being dragged right into it.
They are then terribly happy that they have realized how dangerous it is.
You want to do something for the next generation. (...)
And as I said, there is a solidarity effect among the people who have been properly
hypnotized, so to speak, and they show solidarity:
We are all super good guys and we must - I repeat - we must fight the others very hard. And now, very importantly:
Propaganda is very easy to recognize. You can tell immediately that it's propaganda.
Because it's always about emotions. You have to observe yourself.
When I hear a message or something, I have to watch myself.
And if I react emotionally, no matter how, then it's propaganda.
It's done deliberately so that I react emotionally. Because, as I said, it blocks my thinking.
You have to get used to it a bit. You really have to be aware of it.
Of course, repetition is a very important point.
And not just constantly, but in all media at the same time.
To ensure that no other point of view becomes known. Because people who are a little doubtful at
heart could immediately abandon the desired opinion.
As a result, there is now only one truth and, as I said, critical questions are not allowed to
arise because the corridor of opinion cannot be left.
(....) Okay, and now for the real casus belli.
As I said, this is a documentary program about the Little Ice Age.
It ran at the end of last year (29.12.2023), for three quarters of an hour.
And that is quite interesting.
I'm going to play the first minute, the intro to this program now:
"The weather seems to have conspired against them.
How long will the cold, wet weather and crop failures last?
And will they all get their children through?
Nothing seems to be right anymore in the relationship between man and nature at the end of the 16th century.
A severe earthquake shakes Vienna and even damages St. Stephen's Cathedral.
Cold spells and extreme weather events make the Little Ice Age an endurance test for humans.
The unrest in society opens the door to the self-destruction of Europe in the early 17th century."
So you see, it's a disaster movie à la Roland Emmerich - extremely emotionally charged, threatening scenario, fear-inducing.
And that actually runs through this entire feature film, which calls itself a "documentary".
Sequences with so-called "scientists" are now repeatedly included. So-called
"scientific findings" are now included in this movie.
The man (Roland Weißmann) is important.
This is a vain guy, because he is the Director General of ORF - I will mention why this is important.
So, we have this disaster movie and these are the scientific facts.
And in this film - and this is the main point of our complaint - there are temperature graphs.
They are then placed in a studio setting, where the presenter appears - this emotional feature film is interrupted
by short sequences - and the first graphic looks like this:
These are the temperatures of the last 2,000 years and it still tells us the exact periods, namely the Roman Warm
Period, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
- And then, that's field hockey stick to the power of four, so to speak - then it goes up
quite sharply and you can also see the coloring.
- First of all, the whole depiction is in such a perspective that the present is shown enlarged, the coloring in the
direction of vermilion - and if you look closely, the thickness of the line also increases towards the end, so to speak.
But even worse, when he shows the last 12,000 years, it looks like this.
Yes, so it's completely crazy and it's even outdone, so to speak.
He says something about it.
He says: "The last spike up here, he means this one, which is all red, that's us.
He doesn't say, there we are, actually a time course, we have to say there, no, he says that.
It suggests that we are the cause of this, that we are now to blame.
I mean, it's unbelievable that these curves are in there.
- If you look at it a little more closely, it also says Celsius degrees, funnily enough -
so you can see how bad the craftsmanship is.
If you look at the scales, once it is +1.4°, once it is +1.5°.
So this does not meet any scientific standards at all.
This is important to point out because the ORF is also obliged to deliver quality work.
This is required by law.
So that's what it looks like.
And not only there - that is the absolute, so to speak, highlight of this documentary program.
There are many other things in there that are not true at all.
And that was the reason for us to say: wait a minute, that's such a lie, that's such propaganda, we're going to counter it now.
And how do we counter?
There is the so-called public complaint, as it is called in Austria.
So anyone can say that if they are of the opinion that ORF has not complied with the ORF Act, which I will come to
later, then they can submit a complaint to the relevant authority, the so-called Austrian Communications Authority.
He has six weeks after the broadcast to lodge this complaint.
This will be tightened up a bit, because he has to get 120 signatures of support within these six weeks.
And you usually have to have more, because the ORF then says that 20 percent of them are invalid for formal reasons.
When we have a lot of support, which is not the first ORF complaint, we sometimes even have 1,000 signatures.
So that's not a problem for us at the club.
But you have to get that together because people have to enter their ORF contribution number.
And if, for example, you go to an event with a stand and say, this is our complaint, please sign, then people are
happy to sign - but who knows their ORF contribution number?
Now you have to say to them, please email it to us and we have two thirds of the people out again, unfortunately.
So unfortunately they are not able to send their number, even though they have signed.
But we normally overcome this formal hurdle.
We must specify exactly which paragraph or even subparagraph of the ORF Act has been violated.
And of course we then have to give reasons for the complaint.
As I said, I'm very lucky that I'm friends with some very good lawyers who help us with this so that we can formulate it
correctly from a legal point of view, not just from the point of view of criticism, but also from a legal point of view.
This public complaint has just been submitted.
The great thing is that there are no real costs involved.
So you can lodge a complaint without paying any fee.
There is also no obligation to have a lawyer.
So if you think you're good enough, you can just do it.
It is only a personal investment of time, not money.
Then, once the formal hurdle has been cleared, KommAustria sends the complaint to ORF and the lawyers make a statement.
- Then I or the lawyer write a counterstatement - and this goes back and forth a few times in writing.
After six months at the latest, however, this authority, KommAustria, must make a decision.
This is called a so-called "Bescheid" in Austria.
- That is legally important, because you can fight it now - you can take it to the next instance.
By saying, okay, that's the decision, but there's always an appeal process.
But before I get to that, let's take a closer look at the ORF Act.
What is the ORF's actual mission?
You can read through that now. In other words, comprehensive information for the general public, etc.
- And that is where the communication and promotion of science comes in - that is its core mission.
That is his obligation, that he does that. And all sorts of other things.
I'll leave it at that for a bit.
It's not important for me to read this out in detail.
I always emphasized the important words anyway.
And then there are also very clear instructions on how the program is to be structured.
And objective selection is already at the top.
So the word objective appears for the first time.
And then it says that critical opinions must also be represented.
Consideration of diversity.
This is required by law.
Further down it says again: Comments, analyses etc. Principles of objectivity.
- The word - objectivity - comes up again.
And then there are further sub-paragraphs on how to organize the content.
It now says quality.
That's why I mentioned it in the graphic. It's a joke, the graphic.
For example, no source is given for the data for this graphic.
You know that (...) I can't just put any graphic in there.
- Then he has to be comprehensive, independent, non-partisan and once again the word objectivity, he has to
check carefully for truth and also for origin, and he has to stick to comprehensible facts.
And - it has to contribute to the education of the population.
Everything is actually great now.
So if he did that, we would have a really great medium in Austria.
But that's not what he does!
Now we come to the point.
- There is what is known as an appeal procedure, i.e. a 1st authority. KommAustria decides after six months at the latest.
- And then we always go to the second instance.
Because if the ORF loses, it appeals to the next instance.
This is the so-called Federal Administrative Court.
And if I or our club loses, we always go straight to the next instance.
And that's actually quite good.
This is a panel of three judges.
It is recorded verbatim.
Witnesses can be named, and the court costs are again incredibly low, namely only 30 euros.
The only problem is the cost.
Even if you win, you're stuck with them - your own legal fees, if you have experts and things like that.
Unfortunately, that's the way it is here in Austria.
But that is also the case with criminal law here in Austria.
Then there is a higher authority - that is the highest authority.
In Austria, this is always called a court of justice.
In this case, this is the Administrative Court and, in parallel to this, there is the Constitutional Court, which is de
facto independent, where you can, for example, complain that certain provisions in the ORF Act are not constitutional.
So we are not attacking the matter directly, but saying that this fundamental regulation is not constitutional.
Or the process also has errors.
You can still accept it.
This is also another court of law.
This is the highest court in general - the Constitutional Court, the highest court of all.
What are our experiences?
So this is not the first case, this climate case, that we have brought against the ORF.
The (= KommAustria) has very strict formal criteria, with these signatures and all sorts of things - and is clearly pro ORF.
So he tries to block the complaint as much as possible.
He finds all sorts of arguments as to why this should now be seen differently than the complainants see it.
In the second instance, the Federal Administrative Court, we have very good experience - at
least with the senates of judges I have dealt with.
There are about 35 judges working there. There are quite a few senates and they are neutral.
The procedure is also such that they do not try to influence this.
This is very common in courts.
The judge can actually determine the outcome of the proceedings if you pull the proceedings in a certain direction.
It is quite common in our administrative courts that evidence is simply rejected or
witnesses are simply not approved, so to speak.
But my experience at the Federal Administrative Court is very neutral.
But now it's getting problematic.
Our courts, i.e. the highest courts, are all politically occupied.
And this actually eliminates the rule of law in many areas.
Because if the supreme officials who make the final decision are no longer really, or let's say - where it is
questionable whether they are really objective and independent, that is of course very problematic.
Especially the Constitutional Court. It is clearly politically occupied.
And as I said, the big question is: can it be independent at all?
And I would like to talk very briefly about the Constitutional Court.
It consists of 14 judges, that's what they are.
And that is now very exciting, as I said.
People now think that the best judges in the country work at the Constitutional Court. This is not the case at all.
There is not a single former judge among them!
That is actually unbelievable.
But that's the way it is.
They must be legally knowledgeable.
I think they must also have completed a degree, a law degree.
There are many university professors among them, i.e. those who once headed a legal institute somewhere or are still active.
And there are many civil servants in it who are lawyers in the administration - or, and this is the worst thing, who work
or have worked directly in a political capacity in ministries.
This is a very close proximity of these officials to politics.
And the worst thing is that there are lawyers involved, some of whom are representatives of
politicians or political parties in their work.
It is therefore quite clear that our Constitutional Court has a very dramatic political slant.
And this can be allocated to the parties, because the parties have the right to make
proposals - and everything they propose is approved.
So you can just see how power has been distributed in Austria over the last 20 years, which governments there have been.
And they then push all their candidates into the Constitutional Court, so to speak.
That's just very, very problematic, to be honest, because - do they really make neutral judgments?
For example, a case recently ended like this, which we won in the first instance and in the second instance.
This is a three-judge panel. Great reasons for the judgment, 24 pages.
And then the ORF went to the Constitutional Court.
The lawyers said: Okay, we actually lost the actual proceedings.
We go to the Constitutional Court, which is politically occupied, and they overturn the ruling of the
Administrative Court with a reason that is crazy.
So when you read them, you think to yourself, "what have they smoked again"? It's unbelievable how the law actually - I
have to be careful now - how the rule of law no longer works.
I don't want to talk about the law being bent, but it's unbelievable what justifications are suddenly given.
But the one lawyer with whom I work well is now going to try to take our Austrian
Constitutional Court to the European Court of Justice.
Because we still have this means.
It's really unbelievable how some of the ... and unfortunately, the highest instance is the decisive one.
Likewise, who is the most powerful man in the state?
The one who declares a state of emergency. That was our health minister during the coronavirus crisis.
He now suddenly declares a state of emergency and everything is abolished. So in a state of
emergency, the constitution is no longer valid.
What else are we doing, I've already said .....
Dear viewers - below the program you will find the LINK to the presentation in full length.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the speaker Dr. Bernhard Strehl and the
platforms EIKE, Heartland Institute and CFACT.