Sounds nice, but if you listen to what he actually said in that video it's pretty darn loopy and contorted thinking, no matter how you slice it. And when directly asked, he does say that he thinks climate science is "more pseudo-science" than a real science.

He says that "it's often a tell that they're bluffing," which is a far cry from the universal condemnation of anything with 'science' in the name that you seem to be assuming. Please make an attempt to understand, then argue.

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).

The claim is not "climate science isn't (real because it has science in the name)", but "(climate science isn't real) (because it has science in the name)". That is, the name is being used as a reason to discount it.

That's not really a science either. While there are things like experiments and the scientific method, most of computer science is a confluence of mathematics and engineering.