It is their religion...

He's already done this in other venues. That wasn't the point of the article. You assume because he didn't rehash the arguments, that they don't exist.

Ok, but he should have referred us to where/when he did it. If you read the article alone, it looks like a massive dodge. Especially the paragraph that I mentioned where he claims to have evidence from top journals but decides to not even mention where/when he has actually proven it.

Then you obviously don't know much about the environmental movement. Communism and environmentalism are being woven together in to the Degrowth movement where the two together are to provide an Eden like utopia. Like some hippie farming commune. Look into it.

I was totally unaware that this type of thing existed, so point conceded there. However, he should have mentioned specifically who he was talking about. "Environmentalism" is incredibly broad and encompasses everyone from an average American concerned about long-term global warming and pollution to crazy hippies in a commune. Maybe the context in which the original article made it clear, but I didn't see any specific references like that in the article. If the original context did not make it obvious that he was specifically referring to Communist-types, then he is either violating the principle of charity by exclusively dealing with the worst arguments for environmentalism, or is fallaciously lumping all environmentalists into the box without Communist nutjobs.

All of the rest of your moronic wall of text is summed up here.
Is it really a wall of text? I used five paragraphs for 350 words, not including the block quote.

You missed the point of the article which was not to pick apart all the fallacious and unscientific claims of environmentalism which have been done both in his other works and elsewhere, but to make a comparison to the religious zealotry in which so many choose to ignore contrary evidence to their dogma

Yes, but to what end? Does he mean to argue against all environmentalism by dealing with the most naïve forms of it? If he wants to argue specifically against Communist Environmentalists, why not name them so people like me don't wrongly assume he has conjured up a straw Environmentalist or that he is trying to talk about all Environmentalists? Again, the context in which the article originally appeared may have made it clearer than it is as presented.

Crichton doesn't get into the weeds on the issue you want to discuss, so therefore he is an ignoramus and everything else is to be disregarded.

Yeah, I guess I expected an article dealing with the entire Environmentalist movement to bring up some points against Environmentalism aside from "there are some really stupid Communists out there." If he wanted to take down some specific group of zealots, why not name them, point them out, or even put some anonymous quotes? He doesn't do any of that, despite the fact that you seem to be claiming that he is dealing with one subset of Environmentalists.

/r/Conservative Thread Parent Link - i.imgur.com