Both the comment you replied to and its parent are throwaway and basically parallel imo. Rah rah climate change vs dismissing the link to climate change are both super boring at this point, but somehow one is presently the top comment and the othe dead.
This sort of pseudo-centrist argumentation that is fixated on signaling that everyone is hypocritical and/or flawed isn't helpful either other than as an attempt to demonstrate the speaker's intelligence to the audience.
There's enough climate denial and the problem is acute enough that there doesn't need to be an acknowledgment for every "but we've already had bad weather" person out there. Engaging is largely pointless.
Now of course that leads to the idea you've alluded to that climate discussion follows a religious sort of diction. There's some truth to that, but imagine for a second that the most extreme form of the argument is true, that climate change is 100% unfounded religious nonsense. Even in that worst case scenario, you end up with multiple sources of renewable energy, reduced pollution, reduced consumption of resources, increased energy efficiency, less consumerism, and so on... things we should be doing anyway with or without the greenhouse effect. Can any religious doctrine match the usefulness of this eschatology?
You see this is why all media around climate change has become apocalyptic. Anyone who doesn’t want to have the exact same doomer conversation is called a denier and shut down, meaning that there are increasingly less people to point out the hyperbole.
Not every damned post about climate change needs to be replied to with a condescending lecture.
Isn't the dramatic discursive style abundantly supported by the acuteness of the problem, and the various non-climate related advantages accrued from the methods used to mitigate it?
The fact that annoying/religious-oriented people exist does not diminish that aspect.
Let's say we give additional attention to people who complain about being shut down. I don't want to be too cynical, but the response is likely to be along the lines of not being interested in the various mitigation strategies. There might be quality arguments but the conclusion will largely be inaction or just devil's avocation for its own sake. If we move away from the "called deniers and shut down" or complaints about free speech part there's often not actually a lot of material left. Which is why the answer is sometimes to simply not have the conversation.
