His whole reasoning in that section in the video is just stilly. The reason some subjects have "science" in them and others don't is usually just a matter of convention or linguistic accident -- it really doesn't have that much import (and in any case, no bearing at all on the substantive issues behind climate change). And yet, he's trying to draw the conclusion that there's some kind of a deep, revealing "tell" behind it.

Pseudo-intellectual tripe which we're supposed to take seriously (because he's a billionaire, I guess).