While I agree with what you say, I think your tone is a bit hyperbolic. Your last sentence is Polonious-level "advice" that is as cliched as it is obvious. The real trick is to not over- or under-estimate AGW.

Bad things could happen if we over-estimate significant events, just as much as if we under-estimate.

But the point of the article was, that there is some reasonable evidence that the Great Filter is in our past, so there is no particular need to postulate a necessity of more Filters into out future. Sure there can be more in the future, but they are not needed to explain the Fermi Paradox.