the religious (vs. pseudo-scientific) nature of global warming concerns OR confusing global warming advocacy with environmentalism

From Richard John Neuhaus in First Things...

Neuhaus opens by noting that "No one can reasonably question the scientific credentials of Freeman Dyson, the theoretical physicist and mathematician who has for years and years been writing also on matters environmental, very frequently in the New York Review of Books."

Neuhaus then quotes Dyson in a recent issue:

All the books that I have seen about the science and economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible.

The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world. Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound....[and it] holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.

Neuhaus notes that "Dyson worries about the way in which global warming is skewing the new environmental religion."

Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate.

Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet...

Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.