The Ten Commandments of the Apocalyptic Climate Cult

by Steve MacDonald


Climate Change is an apocalyptic world cult with those in power using the force of law to enrich the cult at the expense of everyone else. As proof of this, I submit for your consideration, a list of ten commandments, all of which have been demonstrated as accurate thinking by Cult members and their Church leaders.

1) The Cult’s tenets cannot be disproved.
2) Only the State as Church can redeem us.
3) Participation is not optional. Confiscatory tithing is mandatory.
4) Climate cult texts, idols, and all forms of worship will be tolerated in all places public and private,
5) All citizens will perform “regulatory penance.”
6) Failed prophesies are not evidence of illegitimacy.
7) Revered texts may be “reinterpreted” by Cult Clerics (see also: experts) at any time to ensure that the ‘evidence’ reinforces the belief system.
8) If you refuse to accept cult doctrine you are a denier.
9) Deniers may be pilloried in public, excommunicated from any scientific or professional community, may not in any number represent a consensus, must repent to be cleansed of their sin or take a vow of silence.
10) Deniers may be charged by the State with crimes against the Faith.


I tried to get the point across in as few words as possible but it is clear that this is scientism interpreting weather as a tool of indoctrination and obedience.

You can probably think of others, or may be able to add to these; Big Oil is the Devil and deniers sign away their souls in exchange for wordly gifts – which is amusing because Climate Clerics only get to keep their funding if they preach the proper cult dogma.

Finally, what is truly revealing here is that the left uses this formula for everything they preach. Replace “climate” with any other left-wing priority (cult) and you can crank out a nearly identical set of commandments, one for every progressive worldview.

Leave a Comment

  • Et Reed

    thanks Steve and Happy New Year….

  • Herb

    What’s this about? The warm weather in the East? Warm weather in the Arctic? Warm weather in Timbuktu? Lets see some real data showing the climate isn’t changing instead of these these inane articles.

    • Bryan W

      The climate has been changing for thousands of years – longer even. Lets see some real data showing that human activity is responsible for any of it, and that policies proposed by any party can alter this path.

      • Bruce Currie

        Information on the science that undergirds the link between human use of fossil fuels and the warming planet is freely available on many sites, as are proposals for limiting further warming. The present warming is happening despite no increase in solar activity over the past several decades. Cosmic rays have been ruled out as a cause. Nothing else explains the present warming than increases in greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is the largest contributor.

        • Ed Naile

          I happen to know what exactly fuels climate change created by humans.
          1. That is where the funding for rigged science goes.
          2. The need for a globalist cause now that socialism, in all its deadly forms, has been found to be complete disaster – again.
          Oh, and Al Gore is nuts.

          • Herb

            Who funds the climate denial websites? Two can play that game. I suppose you believe all the communists in the world converted to environmentalists to disguise themselves. LOLOLOL

          • Who funds the Climate Cult websites? Progressive politicians directing taxpayer dollars to support a desired political outcome. Rich Democrats like Tom Steyer who invest more on politicians than in projects.

          • Ed Naile


            The climate scam deniers are called scientists and people with the ability to reason.

            I happen to know a socialist from Belgium who was lamenting how the socialists have ruined the country and now she is a green. It is the same nonsense with a different name. If you FEEL that all good things come from the super smart people in government then you are a green or a socialist or a communist. No difference.

            And if you have to depend on the tired old argument that if I know something to be true, like the climate scam is – and you fall back on the “all the communists in the world converted to environmentalists” sillyness, you lost your point, or didn’t have one.

            That “all the such and such IN THE WORLD” debating point is so Bob Beckle and Alan Coombs it is laughable.

          • Adam Samuels

            Watermelons : Red on the outside, Green on the inside….

        • The other side of the science is also freely available refuting everything you just wrote.

          • Bruce Currie

            Except that the information from sites like Heller/Goddard’s “Real Science” or from WUWT,routinely distorts the facts, often cherry-picking part of one study to make claims that are not borne out by the study itself, or relying on the professional denier class–people like Lindzen, or Soon and Baliunas, and others, to willingly distort the facts for pay.

            To suggest that the findings of climate science are wrong, and worse, to suggest that somehow the thousands of scientists worldwide whose findings have produced the science, are part of some conspiracy to produce a “desired political outcome” is simply at odds with the truth, and defies belief.

            The evidence in support of AGW is overwhelming; it’s in ever earlier bud break on trees and shrubs, extended growing seasons for gardeners, it’s in ocean warming, earlier iceouts and later freezes of lakes, melting glaciers, Arctic ice loss, bore hole temps, melting permafrost, a cooling stratosphere, and more warming over time at night than during the day, to name some of sources of the evidence in support of the fact of a warming planet and its human footprint. CO2 is the control knob on Earth’s thermostat; the record of how it works goes back well over a million years now.

            All the oil companies were told back in the late 1970’s that global warming was very likely real, and due to the burning of fossil fuels. Since then, the fossil fuel industry has conducted a campaign of denial and distortion–much as the Tobacco Lobby did. In many cases, they’ve employed the same people–Fred Singer comes immediately to mind–to peddle the same story–designed to raise doubt and promote a phony skepticism about the reality of global warming. Those who deny or cast doubt on the findings of thousands of scientists over decades in favor of the claims of industry shills and fringe ideologues bankrolled by the industry rely on the willing suspension of critical thought by their audience.

            If the fossil fuels industry was really convinced that AGW was phony-it would long ago have put up a $1billion prize for the scientist(s) who could prove once and for all either that some other mechanism than greenhouse gases was responsible for the warming, or that the warming was an artifact of fraudulent data. That the industry never has bothered to fund such research, or establish such a prize, speaks louder than anything else about who’s being truthful, and who’s bull-sh****** us all the way to the bank.

          • Ed Naile

            Your facts are not facts.

          • Bruce Currie

            On your say so? Seriously? Feel free to provide your own “facts”. It will be a textbook example of someone who’s rightly entitled to his opinions–but not his own facts.

          • granitegrok

            As Steve notes, we post NOAA, NASA and other governmental numbers (and show the differences when they vary from their older numbers) all the time. Glad to see you share our distrust in their accuracy.

          • Bruce Currie

            You’ve misread my post if you think I share your disregard for the temp data. Sites are all clear on why temps are adjusted. They’re changed due to changes in siting location, changes in the time of day data is recorded, and changes in instruments to ones that read cooler than older instruments. Given the wealth of corroborative evidence that the climate is indeed warming, such as later ice-outs and longer growing seasons, as well as warming ocean temps and warming reflected in the satellite data, calling the surface temperature record into question is a red herring.

          • Ed Naile

            Provide facts to a progressive who is motivated by feelings?
            I don’t think that works in the real world.
            And that is the great divide. Isn’t it.

          • Bruce Currie

            Motivated by feelings? You’re the one making unsupported claim after unsupported claim that only your “amen chorus” accepts uncritically. And then to add “in the real world”–one serious delusion that.

      • Herb

        See NASA, NOAA, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Climate Institute, US Global Change Research Center to name a few.

        • I post NOAA and NASA stuff all the time. Most of it proves what a taxpayer funded institutionalized fraud this is, particularity when you post it next to their new and improved data – see commandments 6 and 7 above.

    • Graphs, links and evidence posted almost every day.

    • Adam Samuels
    • Adam Samuels

      So, you want data proving the bunk AGW science is fake? Do you realize what you are asking?

  • Had a similar idea, but tried to approach it technically, to see if anyone might actually question their…er… faith.

    Yours is better. 🙂

Previous post:

Next post: