This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
I have attempted on many occasions to engage "science" devotees on this subject. Confirmed followers of James Randi will engage you by saying "how can you say that the scientists are wrong", "what is your authority for saying that?"
They manage to say this 2 seconds after admonishing you for some other fallacy.
Try and ask for the definition of Temperature, Enthalpy, or Average and they suggest that all that is known by the "experts". They won't discuss the basics at all. I can't even get them to talk about the definition of Zero which is integral to understanding the definitions of Temperature, Enthalpy and Average.
The basics are always on the table. Assessing how other people have defined the basic words is fundamental to understanding why they stand where they stand. Talking about the basics can be boring though.
James Randi admonished a professed skeptic who approached him. The person said "I am a skeptic".
He replied "I doubt it".
I'd say JEB's "global warming as a religion" essay is his second biggest contribution to international communication of AGW issues, the biggest contribution being the "things caused by global warming" list. Looking at the search results from Google for the phrase, some of the advocates of the idea of global warming being a religion include Freeman Dyson, the authors of the book 'Superfreakonomics', Jon Stewart, Vaclav Klaus and Rush Limbaugh. JEB appears to have been the first to articulate the idea back in 2007.
One impact of the AGW being a religion gibe is that it appears to have messed up one particular Green campaigning strategy for dealing with AGW scepticism. The Green 'analysis' of AGW scepticism seems to have pigeonholed sceptics into something like four categories: (a) those in the pay of Big Oil, (b) former tobacco industry lobbyists who have turned their hand to global warming, (c) serial conspiracy theorists and (d) religious people who follow biblical teaching that mankind has been given dominion over the Earth and its animals. A few years ago the Greenies were actively involved in liasing with religious groups and as I remember it, a prominent British climate scientist, John Houghton, participated in this process. Greenpeace was also organising religious themed publicity stunts like this one in 2007 where a model of Noah's Ark was built on the top of Mount Ararat (apparently built as a 'symbol of hope', but it looks to me more like the opposite of hope, more like a symbol of scaremongering)
However as soon as the AGW as a religion idea got established, the Greenies seemed to drop this particular line of campaigning as being counterproductive.
Note that the idea of calling the Green movement "the Greenies", which I think has been around since the 1990s, is itself intended to invoke the idea that they are similar to a religious cult. The Greenies term is supposedly based on likening them to "the Moonies". The Moonies are officially known as the Unification Church, but everybody else including the news media refers to them as the Moonies.
Well, something to be thankful for, no one has turned up on my doorstep while I'm having tea with the greenie equivalent of the Watchtower. Unless one counts the local Lib Dem candidate's representative.