I suspect the same analysis could be made of the contrarian position, which, in some forms directly reference, the believer's religious faith in their god's investment in humans as a reason that CC could not possibly occur and therefore is reason enough for denial (I think George Pell advanced this argument). In other cases, some religious believers actually welcome the predicted destruction as the prophesied apocalypse and see human attempts to hold it back as hubris.
To the extent that those who accept that CC is happening "... are shepherded by those with vested interests" - surely this argument applies equally, if not more, to the outright deniers and obfuscaters. I honestly can't find the logic in accusing scientists working in organisations like CSIRO, BOM, NASA and NOAA - reliant as they are on funding from two governments most heavily influenced by outright deniers - of being influenced in the direction of CC confirmation. The idea that there is some giant conspiracy here is, frankly, unbelievable and smacks of the very Trumpian tactic of accusing your opponent of your own sins..
The fact is, if we stretch the analogy with religion, that neither side is a set of monolithic beliefs. Many of the reported tenets of the archetypal climate "believer" as portrayed in the media are clearly inconsistent, just as the "deniers" (especially online) flood us with a hotchpotch of different, irrelevant and inconsistent arguments. I agree that SOME climate alarmists are idiots and camp followers with no real comprehension of the extent, nature and timing of the predicted impacts or of the pros and cons of mitigating or planning for adaptation to those impacts. But denialist arguments that start with statements such as "the climate has always changed" or "CO2 is plant food", "this is a socialist/marxist/globalist plot" or "look at these old pictures of Fort Dennison" are, frankly, the stuff of primary school show-and-tells and say more about the maturity and motivations of the person saying them than they do about CC.
I would actually welcome well researched and peer reviewed science refuting predicted rises in global land and sea temperatures, but all I can find are diatribes, conspiracy theories and YouTube videos that usually misrepresent the actual scientific work it purports to discredit.
To me, this isn't really like religion at all because genuine religious belief cannot and never will be proven and there is no real room for dialogue over evidence. Nor cannot it actually evolve. CC seems more of an economic issue (or maybe that's a "should be"), When confronted with expert advice about particular risks, we have choices about taking out insurance. We can ignore the advice, of course, and risk taking the brunt of the predicted impacts and their consequences. Or we can take out some (judicious) insurance by reducing the risk (or the consequences). All the costings I have seen suggest that the recommended mitigation and adaptation strategies (not the Close This! Stop That! cries of the attention seekers) are really quite affordable and have many spin off benefits. (eg. proactive public investment in hardening infrastructure, reducing and reversing land degradation, transitioning from polluting fuels). In most areas of life, I tend to take expert advice seriously and, if I have doubts, I'll get a second opinion - but I do not engage in constant doctor-shopping or seek the opinions of self-proclaimed, but unqualified, practitioners. Where I can, I hope for the best and plan for the worst - eg. by taking out some insurance, hedging my investments or changing my behaviours to reduce the risk.
