Yeah. To be precise, science can tell us all sorts of things about the FACTS of climate change (and evolution by natural selection and many other things) but it doesn't have anything to say about what we should DO about climate change.
That doesn't mean you can't suggest whatever actions you'd like to take, based on those facts. You just can't call them "science".
Or we could tell the speaker that their choice of words was rather sloppy and teach them how to think and speak better, rather than dumbing ourselves down to their level? Assuming we care about being less dumb (which is another choice that science can't make for us).
That's actually an excellent point, too.
Environmentalism is not science. That's not to say that it's a bad thing - I personally think it's one of the worst ideas we've ever had, but that's not the case I'm trying to make here. It is not a science but a philosophy.
Science is about facts. When you call it a matter of "science" that we should do X you're trying to smuggle your own philosophical goals and values into the conversation without any discussion, which is not the right way to approach ANYTHING in life (let alone the kind of wide-ranging societal issues that environmentalists usually try to handle).
In the very least it's a sign of clumsy, low-effort thinking, if you don't grasp what your own terminology is accomplishing and you're just imitating the way someone else once trained you to "speak". If you do grasp what you're doing then you're being an actively dishonest and a bad person. There is no case in which it represents anything useful or good.
Do you see what I mean about dumbing ourselves down to the speaker's level instead of raising them up to ours?
You first, tovarisch.