Here, the author is warning us of the promised false prophets and deceivers, who do the work of the Enemy in its long and shadowy struggle with The Science. Only those who follow the True Path will enlighten humanity, navigate our pending Doom, and guide us into the prosperous Green Age.
I didn't see it as unhinged or wild, just a very tame observation. I'm curious what part of their comment bothered you so much?
This assumes that both religion has no value, and that things resembling religion, possibly in any way, have no value.
This is unrigorous, because a lot of things resemble religion generally or specific religious practice in various ways and have value despite or sometimes because of that resemblance. And annoying also because a lot of people find value in their religious beliefs and it's petty to dismiss that common experience.
What kinds of value? Personal reflection and growth? Community cohesiveness? The construction of inspirational and grandiose places of worship?
How would these be useful values to the cause of Climate Change?
>It's probably the unstated implication that because the argument may share some similarities to religious principals it can be straightforwardly dismissed as having no value.
Nearly. It's that the root causes and values of such societal constructs and shared value sets might be quite different than we expect at face value.