I'll take a step toward it by making a distinction.
The mistake of these particular environmentalists and others such kind is to assume that a total comprehensive control is possible. It is similar to the optimism of rationalism that views knowledge as sufficient to comprehend a totality of factors.
Religion, in contrast, from its earliest days, comes from the other direction. The idea in religion is that it is tied to something else (re-ligo) or relies on something else because of our limited comprehension.
The very good illustration of this view is the religous disposition of Socrates who stands alone in his understanding of limited knowledge against the Athenian intelligentsia. He attacks the sophistic thinkers and "whackos" who assume to know the whole from the part.
It is no coincidence that later Christianity found common ground with Socrates rather than the "sophists." They found common ground with him because they too were religious insofar as they denied themselves--total comprehensive knowledge and certainty--what was only the priveledge of the divine.
That is not to say that religion has problem with dogma. Gnosticism was rampant and still is. It can take its understanding of truth too seriously and so dangerously far as to eclipse the concept of humility in religion. That religious people make such errors is an indication of the nature of our humanity, especially our impatience in the face of uncertainty. However, that gives no priviledge to turn it around as an excuse against the possibility of truth.
Perhaps the point to stress is here is hubris, and not religion. Nobody has a monopoly on hubris.