Interview with new WCD signatory Annet Aarts (Thailand)
NAME: Annet Aarts
COUNTRY: Thailand
What is your background?
I’ve had a strange career. I initially majored in biology (plant biology, molecular botany and aquatic ecology) and worked at the university for three years. But I found the work too stressful, so I quit and started working as a truck driver. In my spare time, I studied mechanical engineering until I got my diploma. Then I worked as an engineer (draftsman/constructor, project manager, operations manager) until my stroke fourteen years ago.
Since when and why are you interested in climate change and how did your views on climate change evolve?
I studied biology and in the 1980s researched the effect of acid rain on soil and plant life. Conclusion: what’s being claimed about acid rain and the end of plant life is completely false. Years later, when I read about a hole in the ozone layer, I had to conclude, after reading a few scientific articles: no crisis, no problem, just false alarmism. The same thing happened at the beginning of the global warming alarmism. Initially, there were still scientific studies and debates, but it soon became clear that climate science was completely corrupt and debate was no longer possible. Climate had become political. The scientific method I learned is no longer followed these days. Climate has become a religion, and other perspectives deviating from ‘man-made by CO2’ are no longer possible.
In the beginning, I also participated in explaining the facts about climate to others. I tried to change people’s minds, or even the politicians. Back then, I still believed that real science and facts would ultimately be decisive, and everyone would know that there was no climate crisis at all, and that this was a false narrative for societal change, created by a global elite.
What I had learned about climate science at the beginning of the alarmism was that the Earth’s temperature was determined by solar activity and cloud cover, and not at all by atmospheric CO2 or methane concentrations.
As a biologist, I’ve learned that CO2 is plant food, not a poison as claimed. Carbon dioxide levels on Earth were already very low at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Now, the increased levels have led to a greening of the Earth and increased agricultural production, which is beneficial for life on Earth.
Is climate change a big issue in your country and how do you notice this?
I also wanted to stop listening to the constant propaganda in the Netherlands and emigrated to Thailand. Here, you’re not constantly bombarded with the message: “It’s because of climate change”. I do read about climate alarmism in the Thai media, which adopts all Western propaganda.
What would climate policy ideally look like in your view?
If I were climate minister, I would first examine the situation in the country: what are the risks of climate change and what measures can we take to mitigate them? Adaptation, in other words.
And secondly, I would look at energy security. The availability of sufficient, affordable energy is a prerequisite for prosperity. Therefore, the country must focus solely on reliable energy and quickly phase out all unreliable energy sources.
What is your motivation to sign the CLINTEL World Climate Declaration?
I feel like I’m living in a world gone mad, where science and truth no longer matter. I no longer feel at home in this time and society. Madness reigns. But deep down, I still long to turn the tide. For science to truly become science again, for scientific facts to matter again, and for the facts to finally be debated again.
What question did we forget?
What did you find to be the biggest disadvantage of the current climate policy for the Earth? I weep at the enormous environmental destruction I see caused by policies to save the planet. The deforestation for biomass and wind farms, the killing of birds, insects, and protected bats by wind turbines, the destruction of water and nature reserves like the North Sea. And the massive landscape pollution caused by wind turbines and solar panel fields. Environmental groups no longer stand up for nature and have become spokespersons for politicians. I want to protect nature and life on Earth from climate politics and environmental groups.
more news
Judge Rejects Climate Dogma, Begins to Restore Integrity
In a significant move for scientific accountability, a U.S. federal judge has removed a controversial climate change chapter from a key judicial reference manual. The decision challenges the dominance of model-based climate narratives in the courts and signals a renewed emphasis on empirical evidence and institutional integrity.
Ed Miliband is the last fool standing on Net Zero
As the United States moves to reconsider key climate regulations, Britain’s aggressive push toward Net Zero is drawing increasing scrutiny. In this commentary, Matt Ridley argues that unilateral decarbonisation risks leaving the UK economically isolated while much of the world shifts course.
Climate change computer projections are manifestly false and dangerously misleading
The alleged threat to the planet from human caused climate change has been at the forefront of Australian politics over the recent half century. Every year, just before meetings of the UN Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Climate Change Convention, slight increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature are portrayed in the media as harbingers of future doom. Every extreme weather event is made out to be an ill omen of what is to come unless fossil fuels are eliminated.
