At the chance of being declared a knuckle-dragging climate denier, we have to disagree with those who have prescient knowledge of the coming end of the world.

Wall Street Journal columnist Gerard Baker recently declared that the climate change movement has become the modern world’s secular religion, something we had already noticed.

Don’t get us wrong. We don’t deny that the climate changes; it always has.

It’s just that the current crop of leftist fanatics who are determined to destroy America, are using normal fluctuations in weather in an attempt to scare people into approving massive governmental changes.

As we remember our one geology course (sometime in the dark ages), the world started as a very warm place, which resulted in lush plant growth and huge critters called dinosaurs. Then they died off, maybe as a result of a major volcanic eruption that blocked the sun for an extended period, causing the first ice age.

We believe we read that the large loss of life – vegetable and animal – and the geological permutations that followed resulted in the oil and coal resources we have tapped to benefit human life in more recent times.

If someone can supply us with more accurate information than this primer-type stuff we recall, we would happily be corrected.

Climate activists preach a gospel of conservation that aims to redeem humanity’s environmental sins. They counsel us to abstain from eating meat to reduce our “carbon footprint,” and prophesy that Earth will perish unless governments worldwide trust the oracle from whom we received this hallowed revelation.

Climate cultists appropriate aspects of Christianity to call the world to repent for its “Original Sin of a carbon industrial revolution,” wrote Baker. They do that and more. Climate cultists, whether consciously or unconsciously, have adopted the schema of the Christian eschaton, or end of the world. They have also incorporated into their faith elements of neo-paganism, he continued.

We have wondered if the proclamations such as those by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) that the world will end in 12 years if we don’t shut down our economy and live without oil, gasoline, airplanes or meat are considered divine revelation – or simply delusional hysterics.

Predicting the end of the world is off limits, according to scripture.

Only God knows when the world will end – not even the Son, according to the Bible we read.

We read a piece awhile back on the Union Theological Seminary in New York City where students confessed their sins to plants. Sumantra Maitra at The Federalist asserted this means that climate activists are “pagan animists.”

A 2018 Gallup Poll survey showed that climate cultists are winning the minds of millennials.

“We’re running out of time to stop the disciples of AOC from taking their agenda to Washington. The best we can do now is show that climate cultists are exaggerating their claims to attain political power,” said Baker.

We wonder why these people don’t just relocate to Cuba or Venezuela – or maybe even China – so that they can give up these things they detest in order to save the planet.

We’re opposed to the climate change enthusiasts changing our system of government. Their actions probably won’t make a difference to us – even if successful – but we want our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to be able to enjoy a free enterprise existence, including automobiles and fuel to run them, plane trips and warm houses stocked with plenty of food – readily available from the convenient neighborhood grocery.

College paper apologizes for Sessions coverage

Managing Editor Michael Swisher sent us a link to the Northwestern University newspaper (Evanston, Ill.) in which it abjectly apologizes for hurting the snowfl akes’ (not its word) feelings for its coverage of a speech there by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The newspaper apologized for using photos of protesting students in its pages because it traumatized them… and was invasive.

Our thought: the kids should have stayed in their safe places if they didn’t want to hear a different opinion or be seen.

We especially liked the response to the editorial by Northwestern Alumnus Andrew Friedman, an attorney, who pointed out:

“Student discomfort is not a valid or wise reason to dilute your coverage. Hard issues sometimes require people, particularly journalists, to ask hard questions. Regarding basic research to identify individuals involved in a public protest, do you think journalists who covered the protests in Charlottesville should have avoided photographing the protest activity or trying to interview individual protesters to protect their privacy or make them feel ‘safe,’ any more so than in this situation? You can’t honestly believe that groups on one end of the political spectrum somehow deserve more protection than on the other end. This is a nation that tolerates neo-nazis marching in Skokie and burning our own flag in protest. if someone doesn’t want to be interviewed, a simple ‘no comment’ does the job. Please don’t water down your coverage or pull your punches over misplaced (and Constitutionally infirm) hurt feelings - report on what needs to be reported on; tell it straight.”

We know that Michael sent us the article just to get our blood pressure up.

But that’s okay. He was paying us back. We couldn’t help somewhat sarcastically calling attention to the University of Oklahoma football game with Iowa State, which the Sooners survived principally because Iowa State opted to go for a two-point conversion (and missed) after scoring the touchdown right at the end that would have tied the score with an extra point kick.

We didn’t mention that OSU defeated Iowa State earlier this season, 34-27. And that game was played in Ames. OU almost lost at home.

Both Michael and this writer are inclined to “stir the pot” occasionally.