Paris Police Knifeman had ‘Radical Vision of Islam,’ But PC France Reluctant to Call 4 Murders Terrorism

©  Reuters / Philippe Wojazer

The knife-wielding attacker who murdered four people at a Paris police station adhered to a “radical vision of Islam,” French anti-terrorism prosecutors say. The knifeman apparently converted to Islam 10 years ago.

Mickael Harpon, a 45-year-old police computer expert with 15 years’ experience on the force, was shot dead by fellow officers on Thursday, after killing four people and wounding two in a stabbing rampage at police headquarters in Paris.

Though terrorism was not declared the motive in the attack, the case was handed over to the country’s anti-terrorism prosecutor on Friday. The prosecutor said on Saturday that Harpon followed a “radical vision of Islam,” following media reports a day earlier that he had converted to the faith 18 months prior to the attack.

However, authorities now say the suspect converted to Islam around 10 years ago, and displayed signs of “latent radicalization.” He also exchanged 33 text messages with his wife in the runup to the attack, all of which were of a religious nature, prosecutors said on Saturday.

French Interior Minister Christophe Castaner said that Harpon – whose rampage was ended with a shot to the head from an automatic rifle – had “never shown any behavioral problems” during his time with the force. Harpon’s wife, however, told investigators that her husband “heard voices” and had become “incoherent” on Wednesday night, before waking “abruptly” on the morning of the killing spree.

Radical Islamism is real insanity, if not Satanic invasion! I'm leaning more and more toward the latter.

©  Reuters / Christian Hartmann

As prosecutors probe Harpon’s religious leanings, the French government went out of its way to urge people not to jump to conclusions.

“It is important to emphasize you are not a terrorist [just] because you are Muslim, and converting to Islam is not an automatic sign of radicalization. The facts need to be looked at carefully,” government spokeswoman Sibeth Ndiaye told Franceinfo radio on Friday.

After all the radical Islamic attacks in Paris and elsewhere in France, the government is still very reluctant to call a spade a spade. #PCMadness!

Asylum Seeker Sought Bloody Revenge Against Christians, Germans

Judge can't understand insanity of radical Muslims

BY BENJAMIN WEINTHAL 

A German court in the southern city of Augsburg on Wednesday sentenced a radical Islamist Palestinian asylum seeker to a 10-year prison term for attempting to murder judges and prosecutors. Haidar A., the extremist Palestinian, had previously been sentenced in 2017 for attempting to behead a refugee.

“It’s amazing how a young man can be so caught up in hate, anger and blind rage,” said presiding judge Sandra Mayer, according to the report of the local Augsburger Allgemeine paper. She added that “Haidar A. is caught in almost medieval ways of thinking, and the court has little hope that he will develop for the better.”

Careful, Sandra, you're describing Islam there.

The court sentenced the 26-year-old Haidar for six attempted murders on Wednesday. During the judicial process in the summer of 2017, he attempted to take the weapon of a police officer in the courtroom. He was, according to the Augsburger Allgemeine, upset that the court sentenced him to a lengthy prison term for attempting to behead an asylum seeker with a knife in the town of Hurlach – a municipality in the German state of Bavaria.

Haidar also spat in the direction of the judge’s bench and screamed: “To hell with you and those who created you.”

According to the paper’s report, Haider wanted to behead the refugee because he “insulted his religious feelings.” The court sentenced him to 12 years and nine months in prison. When the sentence was announced, Haidar tossed his shoe in the direction of the judge and attempted to secure the firearm of a police officer. The combined sentences from 2017 and Wednesday likely mean that Haidar could serve a prison term longer than 20 years.

Haidar wrote in a letter to cousins that judge is a “whore” and the other judges are her “pimps,” adding in the letter that he wants to kill the judges. Haidar also admitted in a letter he sent to the court that he wanted to carry out a campaign of bloody revenge on Germans and Christians. The German Bild paper reported that he wrote to the panel of judges overseeing his case:

“I promise, if I get a pig from your worshipers of the cross in my hands, I will drink his blood. I’ll spit at you and your cross." 

When he stands before Jesus Christ, he will not be quite so brave.

German authorities frequently decline to release the last name of criminals and defendants to protect privacy rights. Judge Mayer said that Haidar presents himself as the victim and blames his situation on the fellow refugee in the asylum shelter where he lived, who he sought to murder, as well as the judicial system who prosecuted his action. The judge said Haidar accused the judicial process and other foreigners of “hostility toward Muslims.”

Meyer explained: “It has nothing to do with the fact that the defendant is a foreigner or Muslim, but only that he wanted to kill people,” noting that it was strange how a person who was taken in and received as a refugee in Germany could develop such hatred against the state and society.

It's not strange at all, Sandra. Radical Muslims are insane, as Syrian Psychiatrist Dr. Wafa Sultan explains, “I came to the absolute conviction that it is impossible…impossible…for any human being to read the biography of Mohammed and believe in it, and then emerge a psychologically and mentally healthy person.”

It's amazing you don't know that. 

Walter Rubach, the criminal defense attorney for Haidar, told the Augsburger Allgemeine that he believes Haidar will not be released before his prison term is completed, and because he is a Palestinian without a passport, it will be difficult to extradite him anywhere.

All radical Muslims need to be locked up as criminally insane and kept locked up until they renounce Islam altogether. I believe acts of terrorism and madness will dictate this response sometime in the next few decades.

War on Christianity - Major New Offensive for #PCMadness

Forced to use transgender pronouns: Doctor speaks out after tribunal rules

Bible ‘incompatible with human dignity’

© REUTERS/Carlos Barria

A British doctor has warned that a dangerous precedent has been set after a tribunal ruled that he was rightfully terminated for refusing to use transgender pronouns, and that his Christian values clash with those of UK society.

Dr. David Mackereth was fired from his job at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) after telling his manager that in a hypothetical scenario, he would never “call any 6-foot tall bearded man madam.”

He would never “call any 6-foot tall bearded man madam.”

The case was brought before a Birmingham employment tribunal, which said in its ruling that the government department had every right to sack Mackereth, and that the doctor’s biblical beliefs have no place in British society.

"Belief in Genesis 1:27, lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism in our judgment are incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others."

“Core” Christian beliefs have been labeled as

unfit for modern life

Speaking to RT, Mackereth said that the ruling has profound and troubling implications for freedom of speech and conscience in the UK.

"The question here is whether I can be forced to do something and to say something that goes deeply against my conscience."

He said that the judgment means that “you’re not allowed not to believe the transgender movement’s maxims,” while “core” Christian beliefs have been labeled as unfit for modern life.

Mackereth plans to appeal the ruling.

It was just a matter of time before PCMad western societies got around to declaring the Bible as incompatible with #PCMadness. We need to pray that courts abandon this anti-Christian ruling, but we shouldn't be surprised if we see this insanity spread like wildfire in western societies.

Politically correct people do not, in general, believe in God, and have no fear of standing in judgment before Jesus Christ. They will, as we all will, and they will then find out that 'modern life is unfit for Christianity'! 

Jude 1:7 - Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

2 Peter 2: 1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.

4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority.

Chemistry Expert: Carbon Dioxide Can’t Cause Global Warming

Written by Dr Mark Imisides (Industrial Chemist)

Scarcely a day goes by without us being warned of coastal inundation by rising seas due to global warming.

Why on earth do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.

Carbon dioxide, we are told, traps heat that has been irradiated by the oceans, and this warms the oceans and melts the polar ice caps. While this seems a plausible proposition at first glance, when one actually examines it closely a major flaw emerges.

In a nutshell, water takes a lot of energy to heat up, and air doesn’t contain much. In fact, on a volume/volume basis, the ratio of heat capacities is about 3300 to 1. This means that to heat 1 litre of water by 1˚C it would take 3300 litres of air that was 2˚C hotter, or 1 litre of air that was about 3300˚C hotter!

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. If you ran a cold bath and then tried to heat it by putting a dozen heaters in the room, does anyone believe that the water would ever get hot?

The problem gets even stickier when you consider the size of the ocean. Basically, there is too much water and not enough air.

The ocean contains a colossal 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water! To heat it, even by a small amount, takes a staggering amount of energy. To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required.

Let’s put this amount of energy in perspective. If we all turned off all our appliances and went and lived in caves, and then devoted every coal, nuclear, gas, hydro, wind and solar power plant to just heating the ocean, it would take a breathtaking 32,000 years to heat the ocean by just this 1˚C!

In short, our influence on our climate, even if we really tried, is miniscule!

So it makes sense to ask the question – if the ocean were to be heated by ‘greenhouse warming’ of the atmosphere, how hot would the air have to get? If the entire ocean is heated by 1˚C, how much would the air have to be heated by to contain enough heat to do the job?

Well, unfortunately for every ton of water there is only a kilogram of air. Taking into account the relative heat capacities and absolute masses, we arrive at the astonishing figure of 4,000˚C.

That is, if we wanted to heat the entire ocean by 1˚C, and wanted to do it by heating the air above it, we’d have to heat the air to about 4,000˚C hotter than the water.

And another problem is that air sits on top of water – how would hot air heat deep into the ocean? Even if the surface warmed, the warm water would just sit on top of the cold water.

Thus, if the ocean were being heated by ‘greenhouse heating’ of the air, we would see a system with enormous thermal lag – for the ocean to be only slightly warmer, the land would have to be substantially warmer, and the air much, much warmer (to create the temperature gradient that would facilitate the transfer of heat from the air to the water).

Therefore any measurable warmth in the ocean would be accompanied by a huge and obvious anomaly in the air temperatures, and we would not have to bother looking at ocean temperatures at all.

So if the air doesn’t contain enough energy to heat the oceans or melt the ice caps, what does?

The earth is tilted on its axis, and this gives us our seasons. When the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, we have more direct sunlight and more of it (longer days). When it is tilted away from the sun, we have less direct sunlight and less of it (shorter days).

The direct result of this is that in summer it is hot and in winter it is cold. In winter we run the heaters in our cars, and in summer the air conditioners. In winter the polar caps freeze over and in summer 60-70% of them melt (about ten million square kilometres). In summer the water is warmer and winter it is cooler (ask any surfer).

All of these changes are directly determined by the amount of sunlight that we get. When the clouds clear and bathe us in sunlight, we don’t take off our jumper because of ‘greenhouse heating’ of the atmosphere, but because of the direct heat caused by the sunlight on our body. The sun’s influence is direct, obvious, and instantaneous.

If the enormous influence of the sun on our climate is so obvious, then, by what act of madness do we look at a variation of a fraction of a percent in any of these variables, and not look to the sun as the cause?

Why on earth (pun intended) do we attribute any heating of the oceans to carbon dioxide, when there is a far more obvious culprit, and when such a straightforward examination of the thermodynamics render it impossible.

****

Dr. Mark Imisides is an industrial chemist with extensive experience in the chemical industry, encompassing manufacturing, laboratory management, analysis, waste management, dangerous goods and household chemistry. He currently has a media profile in The West Australian newspaper and on Today Tonight. For a sample of his work visit www.drchemical.com.au

To be critically honest, it is only the near surface of the oceans that affect the global climate. The ocean doesn't have to be heated right to the bottom of Marianas Trench. It would be more meaningful if Dr Imisides had produced calculations based on the top one meter, or so, of the ocean. Although there are large areas where the water turns over on a regular, or irregular basis. His numbers would still be absurdly impossible and his theory that the sun warms the ocean, not the air, would still stand. 

If you take this principal in conjunction with the previous post on this blog, New Studies Reveal Climate Models Overestimate Man's Effect on Climate by a Factor of 10, it seems obvious that there has been decreased cloudiness and, consequently, increased sunshine since the mid-1990s. So the oceans should be warming for that reason alone.

New Studies Reveal Climate Models Overestimate Man's Effect on Climate by a Factor of 10

Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures

I have edited some of Mike's comments from this article. They strike me as being unnecessarily inflammatory. This is not my favourite web site, but articles like this don't appear on mainstream news sites because #PCMadness is rampant on mainstream media.

Mike Adams

Natural News

Climate change hoax COLLAPSES as new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures

The climate change hoax has collapsed. A devastating series of research papers has just been published, revealing that human activity can account for no more than a .01°C rise in global temperatures, meaning that all the human activity targeted by radical climate change alarmists — combustion engines, airplane flights, diesel tractors — has virtually no measurable impact on the temperature of the planet.

Finnish scientists spearheaded the research, releasing a paper entitled, “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change.”

The paper explains that IPCC analysis of global temperatures suffers from a glaring error — namely, failure to account for “influences of low cloud cover” and how it impacts global temperatures. Natural variations in low cloud cover, which are strongly influenced by cosmic radiation’s ability to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere due to variations in the strength of our planet’s magnetosphere, account for nearly all changes in global temperature, the researchers explain.

As this chart reveals, more cloud cover is inversely related to temperature. In other words, clouds shield the surface of the Earth from the sun, providing shade cover cooling, while a lack of clouds results in more warming:

Cloud cover accounts for the real changes in global temperatures

This is further supported by researchers at Kobe University in Japan who published a nearly simultaneous paper that reveals how changes in our planet’s magnetic field govern the intensity of solar radiation that reaches the lower atmosphere, causing cloud formation that alters global temperatures.

That study, published in Nature, is called, “Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition.” It states:

Records of suborbital-scale climate variation during the last glacial and Holocene periods can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of rapid climate changes… At least one event was associated with a decrease in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. Thus, climate records from the MIS 19 interglacial can be used to elucidate the mechanisms of a variety of climate changes, including testing the effect of changes in geomagnetic dipole field strength on climate through galactic cosmic ray (GCR)-induced cloud formation…

In effect, cosmic rays which are normally deflected via the magnetosphere are, in times of weak or changing magnetic fields emanating from Earth itself, able to penetrate further into Earth’s atmosphere, causing the formation of low-level clouds which cover the land in a kind of “umbrella effect” that shades the land from the sun, allowing cooling to take place. But a lack of clouds makes the surface hotter, as would be expected. This natural phenomenon is now documented to be the primary driver of global temperatures and climate, not human activity.

Burn all the oil you want, in other words, and it’s still just a drop in the bucket compared to the power of the sun and other cosmic influences. All the fossil fuel consumption in the world barely contributes anything to actual global temperatures, the researchers confirmed.

As they explain, the IPCC’s climate models are wildly overestimating the influence of carbon dioxide on global temperatures:

…the [IPCC] models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10%, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

The entire “climate change” hoax is a fraud

Carbon dioxide, in other words, isn’t the “pollutant” that climate change alarmists have long claimed it to be. CO2 won’t destroy the planet and barely has any effect on global temperatures (the IPCC’s estimate of its effect is, according to Finnish researchers, about one order of magnitude too large, or ten times the actual amount).

In fact, NASA was forced to recently admit that carbon dioxide is re-greening the Earth on a massive scale by supporting the growth of rainforests, trees and grasslands. See this map showing the increase in green plant life, thanks to rising CO2:

Importantly, reducing our global consumption of fossil fuels will have virtually no impact on global temperatures. The far bigger governor of climate and temperatures is the strength and configuration of Earth’s magnetosphere, which has always been in flux since the formation of the planet billions of years ago. The weaker the magnetosphere, the more cosmic rays penetrate the atmosphere, resulting in the generation of clouds, which shield the planet’s surface from the sun. Thus, a weaker magnetosphere causes global cooling, while a stronger magnetosphere results in global warming, according to this research. This phenomenon is called the “Svensmark Effect.” (See bottom of story on link).

As reported by Science Daily:

This suggests that the increase in cosmic rays was accompanied by an increase in low-cloud cover, the umbrella effect of the clouds cooled the continent, and Siberian high atmospheric pressure became stronger. Added to other phenomena during the geomagnetic reversal — evidence of an annual average temperature drop of 2-3 degrees Celsius, and an increase in annual temperature ranges from the sediment in Osaka Bay — this new discovery about winter monsoons provides further proof that the climate changes are caused by the cloud umbrella effect.

Of course, there was immediate reaction to the posting of these studies. Here's one:

Timothy Osborn, Professor, University of East Anglia, and Director of Research, Climatic Research Unit:

The unpublished paper by Kauppinen & Malmi is deeply flawed and the claims that (1) CO2 has caused only 0.1 degC of warming and that (2) only 10% (0.01 degC) of this warming is from human activity are both unsupported claims.

The paper should not be relied upon.

Their claims are based on a chain of reasoning with multiple flaws:

(1) They claim that climate models cannot be relied upon but do not demonstrate this.

  Hmmm. I thought an overestimate in the effect of anthropogenic CO2 was a good demonstration.

(2) They instead make a new climate model (despite this being in contradiction of (1)).

    It's not a contradiction if you are not overestimating one effect by a factor of 10.

(3) Their new climate model is unvalidated. It is based upon datasets of cloud and humidity without any sources given and which are not up-to-date. They provide no assessment of the accuracy of the data used—these variables are very difficult to measure on a global basis over the time period used. No physical basis is given for their new climate model (e.g. no process is given for how higher relative humidity can make the globe cool).

Many climate models are unvalidated - not put out for examination and testing by other scientists as good science would require, yet they go unquestioned by scientists and media.

No question cloudiness is difficult to measure, yet there are those who claim to measure global sea levels to within a millimeter. They two are unquestioned by scientists and media. If they actually can do that, it would require an astonishing degree of accuracy.

'No process is given...' Seriously. You need to have explained that higher humidities lead to more clouds? 

(4) They fail to consider cause and effect. For example, they assume without any support that a decrease in relative humidity is natural. They give no reasons why it would have decreased. They fail to consider whether climate change could have caused relative humidity to change.

(5) They state without any support that most of the atmospheric CO2 increase is due to emissions from the oceans. They ignore anthropogenic CO2 emissions which are more than large enough to explain the full increase. They ignore observational evidence that shows that the oceans are net sinks of CO2 at present, not net sources.

(6) They dismiss the entire body of climate science—especially that there is a significant greenhouse effect—and instead cite their own work (unpublished or published in journals outside the field).

  

    You forgot about Kobe U research and Svensmark (at least 3 studies see references at bottom of link)

In reality there is strong scientific evidence for conclusions in stark contrast to those of Kauppinen and Malmi, namely that (a) all of the CO2 rise is from human activity, (b) that 100% of the CO2-induced warming is therefore anthropogenic, and (c) that (together with anthropogenic emissions of other greenhouse gases like methane) the total anthropogenic warming is around 1 degC.

Professor Murry Salby revealed that over eons of history peaks in CO2 levels tend to follow peaks in temperature by about 800 years. This, of course, indicates that warming temperatures produce increased CO2, and since 96% of CO2 comes from the ground or the oceans, only a very tiny increase in natural CO2 production would exceed large increases in anthropogenic production.

In all this, we have to also consider sunspot activity - reduced activity results in cooler temperatures as per the Maunder Minimum. Solar scientists expect sunspot activity to reduce significantly sometime in the next ten years or so. Scientists in China and Russia are both more concerned about global cooling than global warming.

The biggest problem with the current climate change alarmism is the extraordinary stresss that it is putting on children. They are being targeted by #PCMadness to the point where many don't think they will live long enough to be an adult. What incredible child abuse! It takes away the dreams and plans of an entire generation. It reduces birth rates among young adults who see no point in bringing a child into a dying world. It is insanity and evil! But, at least I'm not unnecessarily inflammatory.

Top Scientist Resigns from Post - Admits Global Warming is a Scam

UN IPCC Scientist Blows Whistle on Lies About Climate, Sea Level

Corruption is Everywhere - Ex French PM and DM Going to Trial for Kickbacks

Pakistan Submarine Deal Scandal: Former French PM Balladur to Stand Trial

Over Role in Kickbacks Scheme

© Reuters / Charles Platiau; Wikipedia

Former French Prime Minister Edouard Balladur will be tried for financial crimes over his role in a kickback scheme tied to an arms deal with Pakistan in the 1990s, which saw large sums paid out to officials in bribes.

Attorney General Francois Molin announced the upcoming trial without specifying a date, but said the proceedings would take place in France’s Court of Justice of the Republic, a tribunal devoted to official misconduct. The country’s ex-defense minister Francois Leotard will also stand trial alongside the former PM. Both deny any wrongdoing.

The 90-year-old Balladur was initially charged in 2017 for “complicity in misuse of corporate assets and concealment” in relation to a 1994 submarine deal between Paris and Islamabad. Hoping to persuade the Pakistanis to purchase French vessels over British competitors, Paris arranged a regime of “commissions” and kickback payments for a litany of officials, lobbyists and other businessmen in both countries.

Balladur is not only believed to have approved the payments, but allegedly profited from the deal personally and used the proceeds to finance his 1995 presidential bid, which he ultimately lost to Jacques Chirac.

Though the kickbacks scheme was first uncovered by Pakistani investigators in 1997, a bus bombing in the city of Karachi put a spotlight back on the case in 2002 – dubbed the “Karachi affair.” The bombing targeted a building site for the submarine project, killing fifteen workers, including 11 French engineers. The incident was blamed on Islamist militants, while some reports claimed the bombing might’ve been a retaliation after the French kickback payments ceased.

Dutch Farmer's Backlash Against Climate Change Alarmism

Dutch farmers clog highways in protest at politicians labeling them

climate change problem

© AFP / ANP / Vincent Jannink

Dutch farmers blocked hundreds of miles of major roads with their tractors to protest what they say are attempts to scapegoat their industry and paint them as a “problem” that needs fixing in discussions over climate change.

Up to 10,000 farmers took to the highways in their tractors on Monday to slowly make their way to The Hague causing 620 miles (998km) of traffic jams and the worst morning commute in the country’s history.

Some farmers managed to avoid the traffic by driving along the North Sea beaches to reach the city. 

In a statement, police said they “respect that farmers are standing up for their interest” and that they were trying to facilitate the protest as well as they could, but urged tractor drivers to follow instructions of traffic guides on the routes.

No official measures against farmers have yet been announced, but one party has suggested that the Netherlands should cut back 50 percent on the number of live animals produced every year. A broad package of measures includes a proposal to grant financial aid to farmers who want to cease their operations or adopt greener practices, the Associated Press reported.

“Farmers and growers are sick of being painted as a ‘problem’ that needs a ‘solution,’” Dirk Bruins of industry group LTO said in a statement.

“This is about our families, our future, the future of our children. It’s about our way of life,” sheep farmer Bart Kemp told the crowds of farmers gathered in The Hague and called for a “new era in which the food producers of the Netherlands are listened to.”

The farmers’ protest also comes after a court found the country is in violation of EU emissions rules — and the dispute highlights the dilemma faced by governments eager to pass popular eco-friendly laws and reduce emissions while trying to mitigate the negative effects on those who earn their livelihoods in the biggest emissions-producing industries.

Agriculture Minister Carola Schouten said she was ready to listen to farmers’ concerns and assured them that the country was working toward “a strong agricultural sector with an eye on a healthy environment.”

Police said they detained two demonstrators — one who drove through a metal fence and another who attempted to interfere with the detention.

Agricultural animals are a factor in the global warming debate, perhaps a bigger factor than fossil fuels, producing methane gas that may actually contribute to warming. This, however, can be mitigated significantly by an adjustment in diet. 

While thousands of people are starving to death, this is not the time to cut food production.