poster44ny, the name never changed .. "In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years:
And a Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature:" .. links with more .. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
As for your cooling scam ..
Human activity continues to warm the planet over the past 16 years
What the science says... Select a level... Intermediate Advanced
Once natural influences, in particular the impact of El Niño and La Niña, are removed from the recent temperature record, there is no evidence of a significant change in the human contribution to climate change. http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm
the warming trend is clear.
As for your denial debate ..
Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air
By Phil Plait
I was thinking of writing a lengthy post about climate change denial being completely unscientific nonsense, but then geochemist and National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell wrote a post that is basically a slam-dunk of debunking .. http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart . His premise was simple: If global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.
He looked up how many peer-reviewed scientific papers were published in professional journals about global warming, and compared the ones supporting the idea that we’re heating up compared to those that don’t. What did he find? This:
The thin red wedge.
Image credit: James Lawrence Powell
Oh my. Powell looked at 13,950 articles. Out of all those reams of scientific results, how many disputed the reality of climate change?
Twenty-four. Yup. Two dozen. Out of nearly 14,000.
Now I know some people will just say that this is due to mainstream scientists suppressing controversy and all that, but let me be succinct: That’s bull. Science thrives on dissenting ideas, it grows and learns from them. If there is actual evidence to support an idea, it gets published. I can point out copious examples in my own field of astronomy where papers get published about all manners of against-the-mainstream thinking, some of which come to conclusions that, in my opinion, are clearly wrong.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
