[rickhanlonii]

You're using two terms which are propositions (that is, they can be either true or false), and demonizing them as if they're subjectively defined and able to be manipulated for individual or group gains. That's simply not the case.

Global warming is the fact that the global temperature of Earth has been rising since the 19th century. It either has been warming, or it has not been warming. By fact, it has.

Climate Change is a statical fact. If the Earth is in a state of Climate Change, then there is a significant change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over a given time period. Whether or not the change is hot or cold is irrelevant, as both cases are alarming.

It's called Climate Change now because it's better defined, characteristic, and accurate than the rather obvious and uninformative term 'global warming.' The planet is not just warming, it's warming at a rate that is statistically significant. If that warming slows, but still stays above a significant rate, then we're still in a state of Climate Change and should still be alarmed.

Now, if you want to have a conversation about the validity of Climate Change with integrity, you would need to focus around the merit of the statistical thresholds defined. It could be the case that the thresholds in which leading climatologists have set are too low to merit being alarmed about. Make that case if you can. Otherwise, there's really no basis to make an argument against it.