I liked what garg said about wasting bandwidth, but thought it might be worthwhile to pick up where gozer left off. I find it useless to argue with propagandists, but it does serve some purpose for everyone else to get the facts straight.
The notion that somehow THEY changed the words from "global warming" to "climate change" is utter bullshit. For anyone is who is even remotely intellectually curious, all they could have done is go to google scholar and do a search for "global warming". I got over 19,000 hits. Oh yeah. THAT was for 2018. Only. I guess someone didn't get the memo.
Global warming is about the globe ... uuhhhh, ummm ... warming. Climate change or climatic change is actually the far older term and refers ---- in the recent past --- to the vast changes in the climate due to that warming. Going further back it can also refer to the nonanthropogenic changes that have occurred throughout the planet's history. But more recently, it refers to changes like those in the hydrological cycle: melting glaciers, rising sea level, droughts, floods, increasing salinity in fresh water resources. Also hurricanes, distortions in the jet stream, wildfires, animal migrations, vector-borne diseases and so on. The term 'global warming' began around the 60s or so and then became increasingly popular after Wally Broecker's paper in 1975, Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?
. See what he did there? He used both the older term climatic change AND the newer term 'global warming'. Oh yeah, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, formed in 1988 was never the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming.
As to gozer's point, there was indeed one individual who actually advocated FOR POLITICAL REASONS using the term "climate change" instead of that horrible word "global warming". That was Frank Luntz. You can read it about it here: Memo exposes Bush's new green strategy
. Or read the actual memo here