I don't think they're trying to make an argument, just broadly observing that the article has some similarities to some Biblical themes.

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?

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.

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.

>have value despite or sometimes because of that resemblance

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.

Yes, these are great examples of the sort of good & useful conversations that are not going to happen when you frame all religious impulses as inherently valueless or destructive.

Religious impulses get measured on a different metric than the dry, purely scientific and logical basis that Climate Change is supposedly formed from. If it really is a religious impulse, then we have to completely re-evaluate the constructiveness and worth of the idea (that is, if its acolytes will let us).