การรายงานข่าวเกี่ยวกับสภาพอากาศ – รายงาน ORF อยู่ภายใต้การตรวจสอบ: การโฆษณาชวนเชื่อเกี่ยวกับสภาพอากาศในออสเตรีย – เราตอบโต้ [ดร. เบิร์นฮาร์ด สเตรล]

03.01.2025 | www.kla.tv/31621

Once again there is reason to inform about the inadequate reporting in the ORF documentation shown. On the occasion of the "International Conference on Climate and Energy" in Vienna in 2024, participants learned about the manipulative climate journalism that the ORF is also fond of. On the occasion of this conference, Kla.TV is today showing excerpts from an insightful lecture by Dr. Bernhard Strehl, an entrepreneur and physicist for atomic and radiation physics. He became a red rag to Austrian climate researchers through his more than 50 well-founded lectures on the subject of climate. During the Corona crisis, Strehl and his friends founded the IMMUN association in a double sense - medically and legally. Through many legal interventions at the administrative court level, Strehl learned that you do not have to be a lawyer to be able to represent someone in the administrative court in Austria. According to his own statements, he has already represented many people for free and has gained experience in more than 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 slogans like Nazi and right-wing radicals. How does climate propaganda work through the mainstream media? Now watch Dr. Strehl's extremely informative lecture in an abridged version entitled: Climate propaganda in Austria. We counter it. (Bernhard Strehl:) ... this word global warming, that actually only came into use when the Corona crisis ended. Then the word, at least here in Austria, global warming suddenly came into use. Before that, it was always called global warming. That had been the case since the 1980s. Then it suddenly became a little weaker. Then people suddenly started talking about climate change. I suspect that Climategate played a certain role. Because it has also partly reached the mass media that there is something wrong with this climate science. And now, recently, it has been extremely escalated. Now we have global warming and climate hell. And the UN Secretary General Guterres took the cake - "global boiling". I'll quote his sentence here: "The era of global warming is over. The era of global boiling has begun." And I have that in the original. I'll 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 did say a few things. "The air is no longer breathable. And the heat is unbearable." And what surprised me most was that he said that in front of the entire UN General Assembly in July last year (2023). And there were a lot of media there and it was simply accepted. Nobody said anything. And I would now like to quote Will Happer: "What has he smoked?" Let's go further from there. Another relatively new word is climate crisis. Now everything is just a crisis. And I am also a climate crisis denier of all the media in Austria. And anyone who says, wait a minute, that could be a bit different, is immediately labelled a denier, a climate crisis denier. We know exactly why that is used. It is used, of course, because there are Holocaust deniers and we are put in the same corner. Here in the German-speaking world there is something very insidious. It is the so-called climate journalism network. Several hundred journalists and media people work there. It dictates which words must be used. You no longer use climate change, that is far too harmless. The word climate crisis must be used. It is a kind of dictionary of permitted formulations so that it comes across as dramatic as possible. And I mention this because there are editors from the ORF there. And we will soon get to why this is relevant. (…) And then of course the social media, where young people in particular are basically stuck and only get everything from social media. We also have alternative media in Austria. (…) They have a very good reach. However, the general public avoids these media because they are also branded as right-wing radical. And the worst thing in Austria are the schools and universities. They are pure propaganda and indoctrination and ideology... So it's unbelievable. Unbelievable what's happening there! I don't understand at all how that's possible. For me, none of these are universities anymore. I studied at a university, at the Technical University of Vienna. But what's happening there nowadays, actually since Bologna, since they introduced this system, they're no longer universities for me.Freedom of research and freedom of teaching no longer exist, at least since Corona. Now I want to mention the state broadcaster very briefly, because we are taking action against it. Here it is called Austrian Broadcasting - ORF. And it has these channels: ORF1, ORF 2 and ORF III. Here you can also receive the state media from Germany very well and then of course a lot of private channels. I just want to show - this is the survey from this year, the reach of these channels from March. There are now around 40. If we look at it a little more closely, the top 10 so to speak, we see: ORF 2 has the greatest reach, 20% of Austrians watch it every day. That's because it shows the so-called "news". So it shows the rational propaganda, so to speak. ORF 1 is the other one. And then it's interesting, it's really interesting, in third place is the critical channel ServusTV, on a par with ZDF. And if you look more closely now, 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? They use a clever excuse, because it's a very expensive, small ORF channel: "It's so young, it has to be protected from the pressure to get ratings." But it's been in operation for 15 years. But I found out in conversation with them that ORF III is at 2.8%. (...) I understand why they want to suppress it. They have a huge budget and that doesn't really justify this reach at all. And they want to cover it up in this way. (...) And how does propaganda work and what does it want to achieve? It actually wants to achieve consent - namely for what the powerful or the government wants. The English catchphrase is "manufacturing consent". I say to that: "Consent is manufactured". So you influence people so that they agree to what they are supposed to agree to. And how does that work? It works through emotions. There are always emotions involved because they switch off critical thinking, they block it. That is something very dangerous because we cannot defend ourselves against it. The information then gets into our subconscious. And the conscious mind cannot switch it off. (…) What is being done is very bad and it is in conjunction with censorship. Because once you have pre-programmed people in a certain direction, you have to prevent them from hearing a different opinion or a different insight. There are very famous experiments that show that you can influence people to act against their own convictions. But if one person in the test group suddenly has the opposite opinion, then they drop out again in large numbers. That is why we are all censored. A very narrow so-called corridor of opinion is created. It is the emotions. And it does not matter which emotions. They can be positive, like enthusiasm and euphoria and so on, there are all kinds of things. And what is important for us now, especially in the area of ​​climate, is this "I am one of the good guys; I am the best climate protector." That is why they all play along. There are of course negative emotions too - hatred, very important. The most important emotion that can switch off thinking is fear. And that is why fear is always produced first. Due to these mechanisms, everyone else who agrees with me, where I now think I have the right opinion, everyone else is the bad guy. So I am with the good guys and the others are the bad guys. And that is played out quite well. They have been practicing this for over 100 years. It depends of course on the target groups. So different people react differently to messages. Fear is something all-encompassing, though. You can use fear if you can create it, it's great. It switches off critical thinking immediately. The crucial thing is that you have to combine all of this correctly. Then you get the optimal effect. I am someone who goes to our opponents. I go to the events of the climate cult, to the climate ayatollahs, as I call them. Their lectures are structured in such a way that the first thing they do is create fear. It's terrible, climate hell and everything that's coming, and the floods are increasing. And then comes the next step. And then they say: It's our fault. We actually mean it's your fault, the people who are listening. Then everyone feels guilty. And then they say: But now the saviour is coming and he'll tell you what you have to do. There is something I can do to help solve the problem. I can help prevent this terrible thing from happening. I just have to protect the climate. I just have to install an electric car, for example.to because I'm protecting the climate. And I'm the one who's doing something good, I'm one of the good guys. That's the point. That's how it works. I've listened to it at several lectures. It's really brutal NLP = Neuro-linguistic programming. And people are drawn right into it. They're terribly happy that they've realized how dangerous it is. They want to do something for the next generation. (...) And as I said, there's a solidarity effect among the people who have been properly hypnotized, and they show solidarity: We're all really good guys, and we have to - I repeat - we have to fight the others really hard. And now very important: propaganda is easy to recognize. You can know straight away that it's propaganda. Because it's always about emotions. You have to observe yourself. When I hear a message or something, then I have to observe myself. And if I react emotionally, no matter how, then it's propaganda. It is quite deliberate that I react emotionally. Because, as I said, it blocks my thinking. You have to get used to it a bit. You have to really notice it. Of course, a very important point is repetition. And not just constantly, but in all media, everything in parallel. Synchronization, so that no other point of view becomes known. Because that could cause people who have a little doubt deep down to immediately abandon the desired opinion. This leads to there being only one truth and critical questions, as I said, must not arise, because you must not leave the corridor of opinion. (...) Okay, and now to the actual casus belli. This is, as I said, a documentary program about the Little Ice Age. It aired at the end of last year (December 29, 2023), for three quarters of an hour. And that is quite interesting. I will now play the first minute, the intro of this program: “The weather seems to have conspired against them. How long will the cold, wet weather and crop failures last? And will they all survive their children? Nothing seems to be right 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 waves and extreme weather events make the Little Ice Age a real test for people. The unrest in society opens the door to Europe's self-destruction in the early 17th century." So you can see that this is a disaster film à la Roland Emmerich - extremely emotionally charged, a threatening scenario, generating fear. And that runs through this whole feature film, which calls itself a "documentary film". Sequences with so-called "scientists" are inserted again and again. So-called "scientific findings" are now presented in this film. The man (Roland Weißmann) is important. He is a vain guy, he is the general director of the ORF - I will mention why that is important. So, we have this disaster film and these are the scientific facts and in this film - and this is the main point of our complaint - there are temperature graphs in it. They are shown in a studio setting, then the presenter comes - this emotional feature film is repeatedly interrupted by short sequences - and the first graph looks like this: These are the temperatures of the last 2000 years and it describes the periods in great detail, namely the Roman warm period, the medieval warm period, the little ice age. And then, so to speak, it's hockey stick times four, then it goes up quite sharply and you can also see the coloring. Firstly, the whole representation is so perspective that the present is shown even larger, the coloring towards vermilion red and - if you look closely - the thickness of the line also increases towards the end, so to speak. But what's even worse is that when he shows the last 12,000 years, it looks like this. Yes, completely crazy and it's even surpassed, so to speak. He says something about it. He says: The last point up here, he means the one that is completely red, that is us. He doesn't say that we are there, actually a time course, we should say there, no, he says that. He also suggests: We are the cause of this, we are to blame. I mean, it is unbelievable that these curves are in there. If you look at it a little more closely, it also says degrees Celsius, which is funny; so you can see how poorly done it is. If you look at the scales, one time it is +1.4°, one time it is +1.5°. So that does not correspond to any scientific standards at all. It is important to point that out, because the ORF is also obliged to deliver quality work. That is a legal requirement. So that's what it looks like. And not just that - that is the absolute, so to speak, the highlight of this documentary show. There are many other things in it that are not true at all. And that was the reason for us to say: wait a minute, that is such a lie, that is such propaganda, we are going to counter it. And how do we counter it? There is the so-called audience complaint, that's what it is called in Austria. So anyone can say that if they think that the ORF has not complied with the ORF law, which I will come to later, then they can file a complaint with the relevant authority, the so-called Austrian Communications Authority. They have six weeks after the show to file this complaint. This is a bit more stringent because they have to get 120 signatures of support within these six weeks. And you usually have to have more than that because the ORF then says for formal reasons that 20 percent of them are invalid. Well, we usually get 200. If we have a lot of support - this is not the first ORF complaint - we sometimes even have 1,000 signatures. So that's not a problem for us as an association. But you have to get that together because people have to enter their ORF membership number. And if you go to an event with a stand and say, for example, this is our complaint, signatures please, then people are happy to sign - but who knows their ORF membership number? Now you have to tell them, please email it to us and we get two thirds of the people out straight away, unfortunately. So they are then unfortunately not able to send their number, even though they have signed. But we usually manage this formal hurdle. We have to name exactly which paragraph in the ORF law or even subparagraph has been violated. And of course we then have to justify the complaint. As I said, I am very lucky that I am friends with some very good lawyers who help us to ensure that we do this legally, not just in terms of the matter, the criticism, but that we formulate it correctly in legal terms. This public complaint is submitted. The nice thing is that it doesn't really cost anything. So you can submit the complaint without paying any fees. There is also no obligation to have a lawyer. So if you think you are good enough, you can just do it. It only takes time, not money. Then, once you have cleared the formal hurdle, KommAustria sends the complaint to the ORF and the lawyers make a statement. Then I or the lawyer write a counter-statement, and this goes back and forth in writing a few times. After six months at the latest, however, this authority, KommAustria, has to make a decision. In Austria, this is called a "decision". That is legally important because you can now fight it; you can take it to the next level. By saying, OK, that is the decision, but there is always a chain of appeals. But before I get to that, let's take a closer look at the ORF law. What is the ORF's mission? You can read through it now. So comprehensive information for the general public, etc. And it says communication and promotion of science - that is its core mission. It is its obligation to do that. And all sorts of other things. I'll leave it like that for a bit. It's not important that I read it out in detail. I always highlighted the important words anyway. And then there are also very clear instructions on how the program should be designed. And right at the top it says objective selection. So the word objective appears for the first time. And then it says that critical opinions must also be represented. Consideration of diversity. That is required by law. Further down it says again: comments, analyses, etc. Principles of objectivity. The word objectivity appears again. And then there are further subparagraphs about how he has to shape the content. It now says quality. That's why I mentioned it in the graphic. The graphic is a joke. For example, no source is given, where the data for this graphic comes from. We know that, (...) I can't just put any graphic there. Then he has to be comprehensive, independent, non-partisan and again the word objectivity, he has to be carefully checking for truth and also origin, and he has to stick to comprehensible facts. And - he has to contribute to the education of the population. That's all really great. So if heIf we did that, we would have a really great medium in Austria. But he doesn't do that! Now we come to the point. There is a so-called appeals process, i.e. a first authority. KommAustria decides after six months at the latest. And then we always go to the second instance. Because if the ORF loses, it calls the next instance. That is the so-called Federal Administrative Court. And if I or our association loses, we always go to the next instance straight away. And that's actually quite good. It's a panel of judges with three judges. The minutes are recorded verbatim. Witnesses can be named, and the court costs are also incredibly low, just 30 euros. The only problem is your own costs. Even if you win, you're left with those - your own legal costs if you have experts and things like that. Unfortunately, that's the way it is in Austria. But that's also the case in criminal law in Austria. Then there is a higher instance, that is the highest instance. In Austria, we always call it a court of law. In this case, it is the Administrative Court and, in parallel to it and actually independent, there is the Constitutional Court, where you can, for example, complain that certain provisions in the ORF law are not constitutional. So you don't attack the matter directly, but say: This basic regulation is not constitutional. Or the procedure has errors. You can also accept that. That is also a court of law. It is the highest court in general - the Constitutional Court, the very highest court. What have our experiences been? So this is not the first procedure, this climate procedure, that we have conducted against the ORF. It (= KommAustria) has very strict formal criteria, with these signatures and everything else - and is clearly pro ORF. So it tries to block the complaint as much as possible. It finds all sorts of arguments as to why things should be seen differently than the complainants see them. In the second instance, the Federal Administrative Court, we have had very good experiences - at least with the judges' senates that I have dealt with. There are around 35 judges there. There are quite a lot of senates and they are neutral. The way the proceedings are conducted is also such that they do not try to influence them. That is very common in courts. The judge can actually determine the outcome of the proceedings if you push the proceedings in a certain direction. It is quite common in our administrative courts that evidence is simply rejected or witnesses are simply not allowed to appear. But my experience with the Federal Administrative Court is very neutral. But now it becomes problematic. Our courts, the highest courts, are all politically occupied. And that actually eliminates the rule of law in many areas. Because if the highest courts 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. The Constitutional Court in particular. It is clearly politically occupied. And, as I said, the big question is: can it be independent at all? And I want to talk very briefly about the Constitutional Court. It consists of 14 judges, that's what they are. And that is very exciting, as I said. You would think that the best judges in the country work at the Constitutional Court. That is not the case at all. There is not a single former judge among them! That is actually unbelievable. But that is the case. They must be legally knowledgeable. I think they must also have completed a degree, a law degree. There are many university professors there, who have once headed a legal institute somewhere or are still active. And there are many civil servants who work as lawyers in the administration - or, and this is the worst thing, who also work or have worked in a political function in ministries. These civil servants are very closely connected to politics. And the worst thing is that there are lawyers there, some of whom are representatives of politicians or political parties in their work. So it is quite clear that our Constitutional Court has a very dramatic political bias. And that can be attributed to the parties, because the parties have the right to propose – and everything they propose is approved. So you can see how the distribution of power in Austria has been over the last 20 years, which governments there have been. And then they all push their candidates, so to speak, into the Constitutional Court. That is very, very problematic, to be honest, because – do they really make neutral judgments? For example, recently an proceedings went like this, we won in the first instance, in the second instance. It is a three-judge panel. Great reasons for the verdict, 24 pages. And then the ORF went to the Constitutional Court. The lawyers said: OK, we actually lost the actual proceedings. We are going to the Constitutional Court, which is politically staffed, and they are turning the judgment of the Administrative Court around with a reason that is crazy. So when you read it, you think to yourself, "what have they smoked again?" It is unbelievable how the law actually - I have to be careful now - how the rule of law actually no longer works. I don't want to talk about perverting the course of justice, but it is unbelievable the reasons that are suddenly coming up. But the one lawyer with whom I work well is now trying to take our Austrian Constitutional Court to the European Court of Justice. Because we still have that means. It is really unbelievable how in some cases the ... and unfortunately, the highest court 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 corona crisis. He suddenly declares a state of emergency and now everything has been abolished. In a state of emergency, the constitution is no longer valid. What else do we do, I already said... ------------- Dear viewers - below the broadcast you will find the LINK to the full lecture. We would like to take this opportunity to thank the speaker Dr. Bernhard Strehl and the platforms EIKE, Heartland Institute and CFACT.

from doa.

Sources/Links: Klimapropaganda in Österreich – Wir geben Kontra [Dr. Bernhard Strehl] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oHaTQrdB2
Österreich - Die ganze Geschichte | Geiseln der Kälte (5/10) https://on.orf.at/video/14207145/oesterreich-die-ganze-geschichte-510-geiseln-der-kaelte