I dont get it. Every scientist & 5yo kid will prove you that things accelerate with 9.81 m/s^2 when falling, and guess this is still science? Which is a proof of cobtradiction that your point doesnt hold.
The point dingnut makes is that science has to be falsifiable. That means you have to be able to articulate what set of observations would lead you to abandoning your theory. If someone showed there was a place on Earth where things did not fall at that speed you would consider the claim falsified.
So what dingnuts is saying is that he feels that claims about climate are becoming unfalsifiable. If it's hot, that's evidence for climate change. If it's cold, that's also evidence for climate change. If there's no snow, climate change. If there's snow, also climate change. If it's just a sort of average week, then that's ignored and considered to not mean anything.
It's maybe more of an issue of journalists, but the trend towards presenting every possible weather event as leading to the same conclusion leads to the question of what kind of short term weather would be accepted as evidence against the theory. Is there any?
2) Assuming you are already convinced by the science that the global average temperature is quickly rising; one might ask: What are the consequences? And one of the consequences is more extreme weather, as there is more energy in the weather systems..
3) So one may point to extreme weather events and say "in the future, we'll have more of those, and that's why we need to stop emitting CO2". That doesn't mean the weather event is proof of global warming in any way -- it is just pointing to an illustration of what will happen if global warming continues; as measured by the GLOBAL temperature.
It's a valid complaint. It's one about the practice of the philosophy of science though, not something that can be refuted with claims about temperature or CO2.