Except he is wrong on several points.
"While it is a fact that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads, all else equal, to higher atmospheric temperatures, the idea that we can predict the impact of global warming"
If he mean prediction, as in 'it will be exactly 2.5 degree warmer(and not even a fraction of degree off), well then yes. But that's because he is using an incorrect word. He should be saying forecast and not predict. Just so you know, the forecasting to date has been pretty good, and gets refined with new data.
"This is how you get the phenomenon of philistines like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne thinking science has made God irrelevant, "
Richard Dawkins has said, many times, that he is as sure their is no god as a sane person can be. New evidence may change that. He does say that God is irrelevant in understanding the universe.
" by definition, religion concerns the ultimate causes of things and, again, by definition, science cannot tell you about them."
Religion does not concern itself with ultimate causes. That is complete nonsense. It concerns itself with following an unprovable tenant.
Science can tell us about everything the religion claims has an effect.
" Both of them think science is like magic"
Please point to something that lets us know Dr. Tyson thinks science is magic? listen to the man every week, and I can't think of an example.
And yes, economics is a science. It makes prediction. I've seen economic principles applied to scientific fields.
He seems to thing science makes predictions. That is incorrect. There is a lot to science. In best case, it's make predictions. But gathering data is science, deriving forecast is science.
I wonder if he knows prediction have error bars?