That is very different from a claim that climate change is not happening or not anthropogenic.
"They probably don’t realize that the marginal rate of energy cost is fast approaching zero. That technological innovation is exponential and carbon capture can likely be made economical relatively soon."
Two wildly optimistic statements that can be characterized as "the model" he's criticizing in the rest of the article.
I think a bigger problem in the context of the article is that they are not intellectuals.
By adding that, he is implying "Don't need to act, keep burning fossils, tech will fix it". That is in itself asserting a simplified model assumption about a (human) world that is much more complex; something he was railing against in the previous parts of his text. Either it's a cheeky joke, he himself is an intellectual or both.
I fail to see how this moves the debate in a productive direction.
For a meaningful exchange of viewpoints to take place, I find it useful to establish what facts we agree on- and disagree on, and figure out their sources, before we heat up a debate, that is simply downstream of missing or poor evidence. If two opposite parties in a debate, holding strong opinions, but both show up with strong evidence for either side, then both would ideally benefit from being exposed to the other. Closing your eyes to the other sides evidence, while denying them of yours, accomplishes neither your and their goals - if the goal is the get closer to some resemblance of truth.