“Parasites or system whores”: How the truth about global heating provokes hatred of climate journalists and weather presenters

At the end of this research, the authors presented their findings at a public event on April 24, 2025 at the taz Café in Berlin. In conversation with public broadcaster ZDF weather presenter Özden Terli and Arctic expert Hannah Thulé, the discussion was focused on the growing hatred toward climate journalists. The first response to a post announcing the event on the Bluesky platform was:

“(…) In reality, journalists are unfortunately all too often underachievers, parasites, or system whores. But never mind, just carry on.”

Terli is one of Germany’s most famous climate journalists. In his reports on Germany’s daily main news programs heute, the meteorologist does not merely describe floods or heat waves. He explains how extreme weather events are linked to the climate crisis – a matter of course for responsible reporters. But many don’t see this as responsible reporting, but are accusing Terli of “activism,” “green propaganda,” or even “abusing” his enormous TV reach. As a result, Terli and his colleagues are increasingly experiencing insults, hatred, and even blatant threats. A BBC meteorologist recently resigned from her post.

The insulting tone on Bluesky is no accident. In Germany, the demonization of the media can be clearly traced back to the time of the first anti-muslim Pegida demonstrations in 2014. The recent renaissance of the “lying press” accusation – which dates back to the 19th century and was frequently used during the Nazi era – has its roots there. It was the first time that reporters from public broadcasters had to regularly cover up the logos on their company cars and drive with security guards to cover the news. At the beginning of Pegida demonstrations, the names of critical journalists were read out by the speakers and they were labeled Volksverräter (“traitors to the people”). This type of labeling continued during some of the anti-vax Covid demonstrations of the Querdenker-movement. And its has since spread further and further on social media. The attacks are increasing, especially on issues that are dominated by the far right, such as migration and the climate crisis.

These attacks go far beyond legitimate criticism and serve one purpose: to discredit responsible, honest reporting, undermine the credibility of colleagues, obstruct their work, and thus limit their public perception as much as possible.

And these attacks are on the rise. A study by the European Center for Press and Media Freedom in Leipzig from April 2025 found a 44 percent increase in physical attacks on journalists in Germany (98 cases in 2024 compared to 69 cases in 2023). Almost at the same time, Reporters Without Borders published statistics showing an increase of as much as 117 percent (89 cases in 2024 compared to 41 cases in 2023).

Verbal attacks precede physical ones. In conversations with climate journalists for this research, striking parallels emerged with previous investigations conducted as part of the Decoding the Disinformation Playbook project: The colleagues affected reported being called “corrupt,” “activists,” “radical leftists,” being paid from obscure sources, leading conspicuous lifestyles, being biased, spreading fake news, being incompetent, not being real journalists, wanting to educate people, or propagating “authoritarian politics” that undermine freedom and are therefore undemocratic. In addition, there were racist insults and insults targeting physical appearance.

In other countries, too, presenters, who are usually meteorologists with a scientific background, are targeted by radical opponents. Chris Gloninger, who works for a local TV station affiliated with the US broadcaster CBS, has experienced this first-hand, as reported by the T-Online portal. Gloninger reported receiving hate emails to the British newspaper The Guardian. “It was “I’m going to kill you’, written very deliberately in a long letter and followed by obsessive emails,” said Gloninger. The attacks had an impact on his health and his family lived in fear. “I was at work until 11 p.m. and my wife was alone. We were worried when a car drove past at night, because your heart races a little,” he said.

In this investigation, we examined the increase, scope, and forms of accusations against weather and climate journalists using the examples of Özden Terli, plus additionally interviewing ARD weather presenter and trained meteorologist Karsten Schwanke, and Sat1/Pro 7’s Alban Burster.

We were interested in what exactly these journalists are accused of, how it does affect them and the reception of their reporting. Who are the actors behind the attacks and what are their motives? What possible counterstrategies are there? How are those affected dealing with this? In what context do the attacks take place against the backdrop of general propaganda against public broadcasting? What role does anti-science sentiment as a political agenda play? To what extent do the attacks hinder the production of knowledge about climate change? And what do these attacks have to do with the fact that almost no one talks about the climate crisis anymore compared to a few years ago?

1.1 Attacks against public service broadcasting

Since 2014, public service broadcasting (ÖRR) – consisting of broadcasters such as ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio – has been facing growing hostility in Germany. Initially undirected media criticism has increasingly developed into a systematic campaign in which right-wing and right-wing populist actors in particular seek to delegitimise the ÖRR. Terms such as “Lügenpresse” (lying press), which previously circulated mainly on the far right, have become more widely used. The ÖRR has increasingly been portrayed as part of a supposed “state propaganda” machine. This hostility has several thrusts:

• Accusations of bias: The ÖRR allegedly treats topics such as migration, climate change and social inequality in a biased manner.
• Funding through fees: Broadcasting fees are increasingly defamed as Zwangsgebühren (“compulsory levy”), which fuelled calls for the abolition or massive cuts to the ÖRR.
• Criticism of the elite: The ÖRR is branded as project of an urban elite that ignores the interests of “ordinary people’.

The far right AfD is leading the attack against the ÖRR. It wants to abolish the current broadcasting fee of 18,36 € per month and create a Grundfunk (reduced basic service). Its programme states:

(…) That is why our basic broadcasting concept for winding up the bloated public broadcasting system (ÖRR) calls for the immediate abolition of this compulsory levy. It places an unnecessary burden on citizens and finances an insatiable opinion-making apparatus that has long since abandoned its original principles. (…) With its basic broadcasting concept, our AfD is striving to end ideology in public broadcasting in order to enable genuine competition of opinions and good information services.

In state parliaments and in the Bundestag, AfD representatives regularly try to undermine licence fee financing or push through cuts. At the same time, they are expanding their own media offerings (e.g. via YouTube, Telegram or party-affiliated portals), which are positioned as an “alternative” to established broadcasting. The calls for the abolition or massive reform of public service broadcasting are part of a larger project: the weakening of established institutions and the establishment of a right-wing media ecosystem.

With the rise of the climate movement – particularly through Fridays for Future from 2018 onwards – the climate reporting of public service broadcasting came under particular criticism. At the latest with the entry of the Greens into the federal German government in 2021, right-wing and right-wing populist voices increasingly accused ARD and ZDF of overdramatising climate change and insinuated that they were actively stirring up panic in order to legitimise green political projects such as the energy and mobility transition. Right-wing populist actors systematically spread conspiracy theories, such as that the ÖRR deliberately spreads narratives about “man-made climate change” in order to push forward a “green-socialist transformation” of society.

The attacks are not limited to institutional criticism, but increasingly also include personal attacks against journalists. ÖRR reporters are exposed to verbal abuse and threats, especially when reporting in the field, for example during climate protests, election coverage or coronavirus demonstrations. The credibility of individual presenters and editorial teams is deliberately undermined in right-wing networks, often using quotes that have been shortened or taken out of context.

Among others, the AfD attacked Özden Terli, saying for example that it was “always astonishing how so-called experts from public broadcasting (ÖRR), whose reality is far removed from that of the average citizen, feel called upon to urge society to make sacrifices. This is not the first time that Terli has abused his public position to propagate his climate ideology. The fact that he is now calling for a reduction in prosperity for the citizens who finance his utopian salary and thus his high standard of living with their broadcasting licence fees is an unprecedented presumption. Such statements once again underline how essential a fundamental reform and de-ideologisation of the ÖRR is. Broadcasting companies must finally return to their duty of neutral reporting and not be a platform for opinion-making.”

Despite the massive campaigns, the ÖRR continues to enjoy relatively high levels of trust among the general population, albeit with a downward trend. From 2015 to 2025, the proportion of the population with “(very) high trust” in ARD and ZDF reporting fell from 63 to 58 percent. Surveys show that mistrust of the ÖRR is particularly strong in rural areas and among supporters of the AfD and other right-wing populist parties.

1.2 Attacks against climate reporting in general

Despite widespread criticism of insufficiency, climate reporting in Germany has become more substantial in recent years. Scientific findings on man-made climate change and its dramatic consequences have led the media – public service media as well as private outlets – to devote considerable attention to the topic. At the same time, actors from the fossil fuel industry have systematically developed strategies to discredit, delegitimise and influence this reporting. Their goal is to weaken social and political pressure for profound change, especially for a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels. The agitation against climate reporting by fossil fuel-related actors takes place on several levels.

Think tanks play a central role, publishing studies, disseminating opinion pieces and providing supposedly independent expertise. “It has long been clearly proven how the oil and gas industry in particular, but also German coal companies such as RWE and LEAG, have massively manipulated public discourse in order to continue operating their businesses undisturbed. They lie, cheat, and conceal—and have been doing so for decades,” writes Christian Stöcker, author of “Männer, die die Welt verbrennen” (Men Who Burn the World). Although financial links to the fossil fuel industry are rarely disclosed transparently, numerous investigative reports have revealed close personal and financial ties.

A central pattern of the attacks on climate journalism is to overemphasise scientific uncertainties and accuse the media of alarmism. This involves deliberately spreading the image of climate reporting as “ideologically biased” or “exaggerated’. A particularly striking strategy is to downplay individual extreme weather events or heat waves as “natural fluctuations” and to portray the link to climate change as “scaremongering’.

Direct lobbying is used to influence political frameworks, which in turn have an impact on how the issue is covered in the media. When laws on the expansion of renewable energies are delayed or watered down, for example, media attention to the urgency of the energy transition often declines. Lobbyists with ties to the fossil fuel industry also frequently appear as experts in parliamentary hearings, thereby attempting to indirectly influence reporting. Large energy suppliers with fossil fuel-based business models – such as RWE, E.ON and EnBW – have exerted considerable influence on public debate for decades. Although many companies now officially emphasise transformation, they continue to support organisations that work against ambitious climate policy. Organisations such as the Federation of German Industries (BDI) and the Initiative for a New Social Market Economy (INSM) often take positions that portray measures against climate change as “anti-business” or a “threat to prosperity.” The INSM in particular has attracted attention with campaigns that defame climate protection plans as disproportionately expensive and ineffective.

There has been repeated speculation that Germany most important media company Springer’s main shareholder, KKR, has exerted influence over Germany’s largest daily newspaper, BILD, in order to promote fossil fuel interests in Germany. One example of this is the serious failure of the heating law proposed by Green Party Economics Minister Robert Habeck, which BILD had campaigned against. In the past, the Springer Group has already exerted influence on the editorial staff of BILD-Zeitung. The Döpfner leaks had shown that Springer boss Döpfner wanted to strengthen the FDP via BILD-Zeitung. The FDP, in turn, played a key role in delaying and watering down the originally planned heating law. As a shareholder in fossil fuel companies, including LNG terminals, KKR has a business interest in preventing or at least watering down climate protection laws. In 2024, the NGO Lobby Control presented evidence for the first time that KKR was lobbying for energy policy issues in Germany. It was striking that there were a particularly large number of meetings between KKR and the Chancellor’s Office before and during the debate on the heating law.

Özden Terli has been repeatedly attacked by Springer media. For example, in 2021, Bild correspondent Ralf Schuler wrote:

“They are supposed to just predict the weather for the next few days. But for some time now, weather presenters on television have been increasingly explaining the temperature curves of recent years and climate change in detail. ZDF weatherman Özden Terli (50) regularly includes statistics on global warming in recent years in his weather reports. And weather presenter Karsten Schwanke (52) also likes to explain the causes of man-made climate change in detail on ARD. Factual information or a secret climate election campaign? Neither wanted to comment on the political message of their programmes when asked by BILD on Friday. The fact is: “The more aware the population is of climate protection, the more the Greens will benefit from the competence they are credited with in this area,” says INSA boss Hermann Binkert.”

INSA is a private poll instute.

Conservative and economically liberal media outlets such as Die Welt, Focus Online and NZZ Deutschland regularly provide a platform for columnists who argue against strict climate policy or what they claim is hysterical climate reporting. Individual voices – such as publicist Henryk M. Broder and science journalist Roland Tichy – fuel this narrative and specifically attack media outlets that report extensively on climate issues.

The liberal FDP and AfD in particular have integrated fossil fuel-friendly narratives into the political discourse. While the FDP primarily emphasises the economic risks of climate protection and prioritises market-based solutions, the AfD often even denies man-made climate change and denigrates media outlets that report on the climate crisis as “infiltrated by the green left’.

Actors with close ties to the fossil fuel industry repeatedly use certain rhetorical patterns, portraying. Climate change is “natural” or not as bad as said. Climate protection was too expensive and jeopardises jobs and prosperity. The problems will be solved “eventually” by new technologies – without fundamental social change. Climate policy is a pretext for “state paternalism” and “restrictions on individual freedom’. These arguments are often cleverly charged with emotion to mobilise resistance to climate protection measures and sow doubt about the urgency portrayed in the media.

The agitation of actors with close ties to the fossil fuel industry is having measurable effects. In April 2025, a study by the Wittenberg Centre for Global Ethics commissioned by the energy company Eon found that concerns about the climate crisis now play only a minor role among employees in Germany. According to the study, only one in ten employees surveyed considers achieving climate protection targets to be the “most pressing social problem”.

Studies show that parts of the population underestimate the urgency of the climate crisis and perceive climate protection measures as a threat to their way of life. Distrust of media outlets that report comprehensively and alarmingly on the climate crisis is growing in certain groups. This undermines the social consensus on the need for decisive action. Climate protection laws are watered down, measures are delayed or their impact is undermined – in some cases with a direct knock-on effect on media reporting, which then has to tone down its alarmist tone because political progress is not being made. The coalition agreement of the new CDU/CSU and SPD government deals with climate protection in just 35 lines.

Light clouds have gathered over Mainz, but temperatures reach balmy 11,5 degrees at this day at the end of February. “Far too mild,” says Özden Terli. He is sitting in the canteen of the huge ZDF broadcasting complex on Lerchenberg, looking out of the window at the pale grey sky. “I could give you a lecture on that,” but why bother? Everything has already been said. Basically, everyone knows what’s going on, including the millions of people whom Özden Terli will inform in three ZDF news programmes this evening that the next few days will be just the same: much too mild.

Özden Terli is a German meteorologist and weather presenter who is best known for his work at ZDF. He was born in Cologne in 1971 to Turkish immigrants. In the early 1990s, he completed vocational training as a telecommunications electronics technician. Terli then studied meteorology at the Free University of Berlin with a minor in astrophysics. In his thesis, at the Bremerhaven Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) for Polar and Marine Research, Terli dealt with the topic of atmospheric transport of Sahara dust over the Atlantic – lidar observations on board the research vessel Polarstern.

‘They like to claim that I don’t know anything about the climate, that I’m just reading from a script. All I can say is: that’s not true, I studied it,” he says.

From 2004 to 2013, Terli worked as a weather editor at wetter.com and ProSiebenSat.1. He joined ZDF in 2013. Today, he is one of the most well known German weather presenters.

A few corridors away from the canteen, the weather editorial team has its offices. Terli’s colleague is sitting at a map; compiling the meteo map for this evenings broadcast. He lives in a surrounding mountain region, that experienced regular snowfall in winter until recent years. “I haven’t taken my sled out once this year, and I won’t be taking it out again,” he says. But many people didn’t want to hear about it. He had grown tired of the discussions, he says. Unlike Terli. “He’ll see it through, even if it’s a burden for him. I admire that.”

Terli is probably speaking more of has been active on social media for years, advocating for fact-based communication about the climate crisis. “I was on X before Musk came and I am not leaving this space now”, he says. In interviews and public appearances, he emphasises the need to clearly identify the existential threat posed by climate change and not to downplay. “As journalists, we must also sharply criticise politics. The livelihoods of all people are at stake”, he says. He criticises the media for often treating the climate crisis in a superficial manner: “But it is necessary to clearly name the consequences of climate change, even if it is painful,” he says and warns that democracy itself is at stake if the climate crisis is not taken seriously: ”This is an existential threat. The entire structure, democracy itself, is at stake.” Terli sees it as a journalistic duty to report comprehensively on the climate crisis. “It would be a failure to report if the weather and climate change were not linked.”

Terli has been praised many times for his clear, engaging and scientifically sound reporting, but has also been the target of political and ideological attacks, especially from right-wing and climate-sceptic circles. Scrolling through the timelines, one finds “public enemy,” “hetaera,” “propagandist,” he should ’stop spreading hatred towards those who think differently.”

2.1. Typology of attacks against Terli

The accusations and attacks against Terli can be generally divided into several main categories:

a) Accusations of political agitation instead of factual reporting

Terli is repeatedly accused of misusing his work as a weather presenter for political purposes.

    • BILD provocatively headlines: ‘Are weather forecasters campaigning with the climate?’ and asks whether weather reports are ‘green propaganda’ (BILD, 2021).

    • Focus Online (comment by Hugo Müller-Vogg) writes: ‘One word is missing from the description of the ZDF weather presenter: political activist.’

    • @demokratienetz(X/Twitter) says: ‘Özden Terli is less a meteorologist than an activist on screen.’

  • @Jreitschuster (far right influencer) writes: ‘ZDF weather researcher instrumentalizes flood disaster for climate ideology. “To say that there have been floods before is extremely negligent”.

@JuergenBraunAfD (AfD member of the German parliament) claims: Is the #weather actually allowed to violate the crystal balls of fortune-tellers #Lauterbach and ZDF climate comedian Özden #Terli? Isn’t the weather being monitored to #delegitimize the state?

@MeinhardSauer: @TerliWetter ,why do you shamelessly lie to people with your scientifically disproven CO2 ideology and spread fear of climate events whose causes humans cannot change but can adapt to! Is this a requirement of the employer or simply ideological delusion?

@pulpo404 says: “Özden Terli is one of the worst system players”

@OERRBlog writes: “While ARD and ZDF are swimming in money, ZDF weather presenter Özden Terli demands that we must reduce our prosperity.”

@Shomburg says: “Well, a typical reaction for apologists of the man-made climate scam.”

B) Accusations of scaremongering on the climate issue

@MindsOoo writes: ‘Terli lies regularly. Pure propaganda. It was often much warmer. That’s normal on this planet. Climate changes, so what. Anyone who works with panic and fear is generally lying, history proves that.’

    • @JuergenBraunAfD (AfD member of the German parliament) claims: Haven’t we all died of thirst and burnt to death in the #drought in recent years?

    • @@ploecke1claims: ‘If it says Terli on it, it also says apocalypse.’

C) Discrediting him by pointing to changes in weather maps

    • @heraklit20: ‘Everything burns dark red from 20 degrees Celsius 😂 Terli etc etc Real satire.’

    • @ErikaSiegel8 adds: ‘The weather map is on fire and we have to turn on the heating !!!The ÖRR is really bad 👎😡 Mr. Terli is really bad 👎.’

D) Nationalist and racist hostility

    • @HamishM15 states: ‘I hereby declare Terli an enemy of the state because he publicly spreads lies and continues to fuel the cult of guilt in Germany. He is one of those who are driving our country to ruin. And when Germany is ruined, he’ll run off to Turkey.’

    • @MasseyFriend says: ‘The weatherman Özden Terli from #ZDF explains at length how much of a lie #climatechange is. Oh wait! He’s Turkish, active in science and works for propaganda state television.”

E) Blanket contempt for public media as a supposedly corrupt system.

    • @@BigRudolph writes: ‘Özden Terli is a climate puppet and part of the green influence on the ÖRR. It’s time to de-climatize the weather report. It’s called WETTERBERICHT, not “Klimapanikbericht”.

    • @RomanSanter ‘Switched off Özden Terli @TerliWetter for the first time today after @ZDFheute. I don’t need an ÖRR weatherman who acts as an election campaigner for left-wing green utopias at my expense. I also don’t get carried away with weather forecasts.

F) Personal ridicule

@HeckTcker writes: It’s just around -10 degrees Celsius here. Where are the 30 degrees Celsius in February that people were talking about recently? It’s not even that warm in Özden Terli’s rectum…”

    • @Alexander538791 writes: “@heutejournal Today again the weather with climate clown Özden Terli. Viewers are interested in the current weather and not in the climate nonsense of the climate sect follower with a Turkish migration background. This character is unbearable. Enough with the brainwashing.”

@apo_mean writes: Yesterday in the  @heutejournal meteorologist Özden Terli has already given the #climateknight again!

2.2. Systematic political dimension of attacks against Terli

Die Angriffe gegen Terli kommen aus unterschiedlichen Quellen. Neben verhetzten Einzelpersonen, die ihre Wut auf das “System”, auf “Mainstreampresse” oder “linksgrüne” Klimapolitik allgemein eher eruptiv an Terli ausagieren gibt es Anwürfe aus den Reihen politischer Akteure.

Ein solcher Fall ist etwa der libertäre FPD-Politiker Gerhard Papke aus NRW. Papke hat keine direkten, persönlichen Geschäftsbeziehungen zur fossilen Industrie, vertritt aber eine konsequent fossilfreundliche Energiepolitik: Er unterstützte Kohlekraft und -förderung, war ein scharfer Kritiker erneuerbarer Subventionen und plädierte für marktwirtschaftliche Lösungsansätze.  So setzte er sich dafür ein, die Steinkohleförderung in NRW nicht abrupt zu beenden, sondern weiterzuführen und unterstützte Subventionen für Kohlekraftwerke wie das Datteln IV. Papke attackierte Windkraft als “wenig sinnvoll” und forderte die Abschaffung des ErneuerbareEnergienGesetzes (EEG), um staatliche Förderung für Windkraft zu begrenzen. Terli attackierte er mehrfach:

“The ZDF doomsday prophet Terli first gives viewers the impression that we will soon all die of thirst and burn to death, then announces heavy rainfall for the next few days. Stupid when the weather doesn’t match the propaganda again.”

“Now even a #ZDF weather forecaster feels called upon to declare people “enemies of the state” who don’t want to follow his idea of “climate protection”. It’s time for ARD and ZDF to explain the basics of a liberal democracy to editors who have lost their way!”

“The #ZDF meteorologist Özden Terli doesn’t want to talk about “good weather” in the weather forecast because he thinks it’s too positive in the “climate crisis”. But perhaps the license fee payers don’t want a self-appointed preacher proclaiming the end of the world to them every evening.”

Conservative and right-wing media are also attacking Terli. These include the Springer Group, which is directly linked to the fossil fuel industry (see Part 1), which accuses Terli of “popular pedagogy”, Focus, which says that Terli “does not distinguish between journalism and political activism, on the contrary”, and Cicero magazine (“particularly crazy” weather presentation).

There were also fierce attacks from the Jena-based EIKE Institute, which is known for playing down the climate crisis. There are four entries about Terli on the institute’s website. Among other things, he is accused of being a member of Scientists for Future, of being a “protagonist(s) of the political-media complex who like to give advice to the common people”, of spreading ‘nonsense’ or of “educating the people”.

The right-wing conservative Swiss weekly Weltwoche defamed Terli as the “writing arm of the ‘last generation’” and the “ÖRR-Blog” run by a CSU politician, which is critical of ARD and ZDF, has also attacked Terli several times

Terli is being attacked as a symbol of climate reporting by public broadcasters in Germany, which has been under pressure from the fossil fuel lobby for some time. Opponents of the energy transition accuse the public broadcasters of one-sided reporting and pushing climate protection measures, while failing to shed sufficient light on the economic impact and costs of the energy transition. The ÖRR as a whole – like Terli personally – is accused of engaging in “climate change alarmism”.

Karsten Schwanke

Meteorologist Karsten Schwanke has been in front of the camera on public television since 1995, initially spending ten years at ARD before moving to ZDF for the programme Abenteuer Wissen (Adventure Knowledge). Since 2011, he has been reporting for ARD again and presenting the weather on programmes such as Wetter vor acht and Tagesthemen. Schwanke addresses the effects of climate change wherever they are evident, although he believes he does not take such a strong stance as Terli. However, he came under fire as a weather presenter, too.

Unlike Terli, Schwanke has not experienced racist hostility, but he has received countless nasty reactions, which have gradually become more and more personal. “When I’m on social media, I come across people who harass me every day,” he says. Climate change, global warming, climate crisis – these are emotive words, he states. “I suspect that this triggers the same group of people who attack public broadcasting.” He and other meteorologists who report on the climate crisis and the necessary measures to combat it on television during prime time are the focus of attention. “We are, so to speak, on the front line,” says Schwanke.

This can be read in comments on his posts on the short message service Twitter, which he has collected for several years and which are available to the taz. There is talk of “climate hysteria,” for example, of “state broadcasting at its limit,” of Schwanke being called a “failure” or the “rat catcher of ARD.” One user denies that he is even a meteorologist, while others comment on his content only with the hashtag “lying press” or a clown emoji. He is accused of lying, being “remote-controlled” or receiving secret “fees from the government”, Schwanke reports. Just like Terli, he is insulted as a “system meteorologist”, a “system babbler”, a “hired mouth” or an “activist”’.

Such messages sometimes escalate into threats, such as one that a mob will chase public broadcast journalists out of the country. The insinuations are often accompanied by conspiracy theories. “Recently, someone wrote to me and asked why I never talk about “patented weather weapons’, as if there were some evil forces manipulating the weather.”

Time and again, people get upset about the colours on the weather map – it’s almost a genre of climate change denial in its own right. The accusation: the scale is deliberately changed so that even mild temperatures are displayed in orange or red in order to manipulate people and stir up alarmist fears about climate change. “Blue paint is running out, the ARD only has buckets of red paint left,” reads one of the comments under a screenshot of Schwanke in front of a weather map. The suspicion of a conspiracy behind the presentation of temperatures represents a tendency to undermine trust in reporting in general and to suspect malicious intent or manipulation behind everything. Yet there are plausible explanations: Schwanke explains that critics sometimes compare maps from different programmes that use completely different colour scales for temperatures. Sometimes, maps from different seasons are shown side by side to prove alleged manipulation. But the colour scales are adjusted and changed throughout the year so that there are not only blue numbers for temperatures in winter and red numbers in summer. “But everything is used to find something to attack.”

“Of course it affects you,”” says Schwanke. However, the reactions did not cause him to restrict himself. “I speak my mind and say it like it is.” When it comes to facts, he always tries to phrase things as accurately as possible.

The ARD meteorologist describes the fundamental opposition to facts and verbal attacks on weather and climate reporting as a relatively new problem. “In the first 15 years of my professional life, I didn’t notice it at all,” he says. Like Terli, Schwanke estimates that the anger over weather presentations began in 2018 or has at least increased significantly since then. That year, a long, dry summer preoccupied people in Germany and Europe, while Sweden’s Greta Thunberg demonstrated for climate protection for the first time in 2018 and the “Fridays for Future” movement was founded. “The whole thing became more relevant to people,” says Schwanke. “The effects of climate change were really noticeable.” Not only were scientists and meteorologists talking about it more, but political consequences were also being discussed. With the simultaneous rise of the right-wing political spectrum, resistance formed: against the state, against the “system,” against public broadcasting and against those who informed large audiences about the effects of climate change. The widespread use of social media platforms acted as a catalyst. “It all happened in parallel,” says Schwanke.

‘In the past, science was something incredibly respected and widely accepted,” said Schwanke. That is no longer the case. Since the coronavirus pandemic in particular, science has been viewed more critically by many and attacked across the board. “When I look at what is happening in the United States, where scientific institutions are being closed or cut back and where several hundred meteorologists are being laid off at the National Weather Service, I worry about where this is all leading,” says Schwanke. “These are very worrying and very serious developments.”

For Schwanke, science journalism is therefore more important than ever. “We need to put the importance of science and the importance of facts back on the table and bring them into the public consciousness.” This also applies to communication about the link between weather and climate change. “There is no going back.”

Schwanke and his colleagues, including those from other broadcasters, discuss all of this. The increasing attacks on meteorologists and weather presenters are a topic of discussion at conferences, such as the Extreme Weather Congress. “Everyone is having the same experiences, but we don’t let it get too heated and want to focus on our actual topics.”

Alban Burster, private television

Alban Burster is a weather reporter and presenter on the private television channels ProSieben, Kabel1 and SAT1, presenting the weather on the main news programme Newstime and on breakfast television, among other things. He is employed by the portal “Wetter.com’, a subsidiary of the media company Pro-Sieben-Sat.1 Media, where he started in 2019 at the age of 22 as Germany’s youngest weather presenter. Burster also talks to his colleagues about hate messages at industry meetings.

“As soon as I post something about the climate on social media, I get backlash,” says Burster. He is active on Facebook and Instagram, as well as on TikTok. “It’s still a bit more extreme there.” Like Terli and Schwanke, Burster discusses how climate change is affecting the weather. He says he is now a bit more cautious in this regard. Time and again, people who don’t want to know anything about climate change bring up his young age, for example, and deny that he has any knowledge or experience. When he tries to respond to the comments and educate people, the communication quickly shifts to private messages. “And then it gets ugly, with personal insults and threats that you should watch what you do.” The intention behind this, Burster suspects, is to silence anyone who doesn’t fit in.

As soon as the other person runs out of arguments, it gets personal – and racist. Burster’s father comes from Albania. Right-wingers in particular target him for this. “I’m the pig being driven through the village, and then it’s because I’m supposedly not German,” says Burster.

It hasn’t come to the point where he has reported it to the police. “So far, it hasn’t been worth the stress and effort. I put it into perspective for myself and tell myself that I’ll only do it if it really comes to the extreme.”

However, the tone of the debate has become radically more heated and changed. “If you don’t take countermeasures, including against fake news and campaigns from the AfD to Russia, then it will become difficult,” says Burster. “This is a real danger to democracy here in Germany and also in Europe.”

If science, especially natural science, were silenced, humanity would fall back many decades. “That’s why we have to oppose it,” says Burster. He has a clear line in his communication about climate change, but he sees a need for improvement overall. Too much prior knowledge is still assumed, sometimes even by his colleagues. For example, he says, the general public needs to be explained how the current climate crisis differs from the climatic changes that occurred on this planet millions of years ago. In his reports, he tries to educate people by regionalising the issue and explaining how the climate is changing locally. “It’s now possible to give examples: How does that feel at my home?”

For the network analysis of this discourse space, posts on 98 Twitter accounts, 296 hashtags and 2,868 connections associated with the name of ZDF weather presenter Özden Terli were examined.

The starting point for the investigation using the social media analysis tool “Open Measures” was the hashtag “#özdenterli’, from which directly linked hashtags were initially identified. In further steps, up to 20 terms most strongly associated with this name were added. Finally, all connections between all hashtags found were taken into account and correlated. Based on this data, an evaluation was carried out using the large language model ChatGPT 4o.

The aim was to analyse the most important thematic clusters, narratives and lines of argumentation that dominate right-wing discourse surrounding Özden Terli and are expressed in the associated hashtags. When interpreting the results, it is important to bear in mind the limitations of the data on which the analysis is based. Network analysis tools are subject to limitations, and different tools have different focuses in the social media platforms they examine. In the present analysis using the OpenMeasures tool, bias towards strongly right-wing social media platforms must therefore be taken into account. All hashtags originate from user accounts on networks that are known as “alternative” or right-wing social media platforms. Classic mainstream platforms such as Twitter, Facebook or Instagram do not appear in the present data.

With 135 accounts, the Gettr platform accounts for just under half of all identified authors. Gettr has established itself as a gathering place for right-wing alternative climate, anti-media and anti-migration narratives. The Gab, Telegram and Truth Social networks are also spaces with little moderation and a high density of conspiracy-ideological content.

The analysis therefore does not represent the discourse of society as a whole, but provides insights into the topics and narratives with which the name Özden Terli is associated in the right-wing corner of the internet.

As a result, four clearly defined topic clusters were identified.

The largest topic area comprises 193 hashtags and focuses on political debates in Germany. In addition to classic topics such as #deutschland, #zdf and #klimawandel, migration-related terms such as #flüchtlinge, #flüchtlingspolitik and references to party politics (#afd, #grünen, #cdu, #spd) appear. Here, Özden Terli is portrayed as part of “state climate propaganda” and an allegedly migration-friendly agenda.

Another cluster traces a classic American culture war. Related keywords such as #antifa, #blm, #trump, #maga and #biden point to a polarisation along familiar American lines of conflict, which are transferred to the German context. In this context, Terli is associated with left-wing, “anti-state” movements. This cluster consists of 44 of the 296 hashtags.

Another topic cluster consists of 33 hashtags that combine classic climate denial (#klimaschwindel, #climatehoax) with comprehensive conspiracy narratives. Names such as #billgates, #soros, and terms such as #agenda2030 make it clear that the climate debate is supposed to be part of an alleged global deception and control.

The fourth cluster of topics revolves around criticism of platforms and accusations of censorship. Large technology companies such as #google, #facebook and #twitter are addressed, as are keywords from the debate on freedom of expression (#censorship, #freespeech). Özden Terli appears here as part of a “censorship and manipulation apparatus” serving global elites.

Özden Terli’s name functions throughout the entire network as a bridge and connection node linking various discourses. Five main narratives are associated with his name: 1. Climate change is exaggerated or a hoax, 2. Public media such as ZDF deliberately manipulate the public, 3. Migration is being forced by allegedly false climate forecasts. 4. Terli is labelled as part of a “radical left-wing network’, 5. large technology companies and global organisations control public opinion.

These narratives are often linked in the network examined: climate denial meets migration issues, criticism of platforms merges with general criticism of elites. This creates a networked enemy image.

The hate messages directed at Özden Terli in the right-wing bubble examined here go far beyond the realm of the classic climate debate. His name can be found in right-wing and conspiracy-ideological discourse across different milieus – from climate deniers to right-wing culture warriors to anti-tech conspiracy theorists.