Global Warming: Hahahahaha!, page-32

This is rubbish and is continually debunked it does however suck in the mouth breathers as I have to counter this one quite regularly.

I was a skeptic until the overwhelming mountain of evidence to support AGW became to large to ignore. Ironically I was looking for more information to counter believers when the ''Hallelujah Come to Jesus" moment happened. The denial movement was nothing but a bunch of cranks funded by big oil and other vested interests.
I'll back the CSIRO and NASA against the hucksters so until they officially change their tune i'm not.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
Both Terms Have Long Been Used

The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change'was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change

In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."
Definitions