So, unless I am mistaken, I thought that it was Republican political advisor Frank Luntz that really pushed for the shift to using the term "climate change" in public discourse, as he viewed it as a less scary term. In the scientific community, I think it has been a really common term throughout (to the point that the IPCC, founded in 1988, has "Climate Change in its title), as Global Warming and Climate Change refer to similar, but distinct phenomenon.

I also do not know which studies you are referring to when you say that the temperature is not increasing nor is sea level rising. NOAA data shows sea levels are currently increasing at a rate of 1/8th an inch a year (2.6 inches between 1993 and 2014). Similarly, compliations of data from thousands of weather stations by NOAA has shown an increase since 1981 of 0.18 degrees Celsius per decade. This has been accelerating from a much slower pace in the first half of the twentieth century, and is dramatically faster increase than past warming events (I had a long section here I cut out about why this must be anthropegenic due to Stratospheric Cooling, Milankovich Cycles, and the rate of Carbon-14 isotopes, but cut it out for ease of reading. I can elaborate on that, if you want, though).

Thanks for the website link, though, I had a peek at it, and it has a ton of really interesting studies I want to read more in depth, so sorry if I am not able to give a full response right now. Despite the number of studies though, it appears like there is a high degree of data manipulation. He focuses incredibly on median January temperatures in Europe, which we would expect to be decreasing, due to Artic Warming (which is especially strong during the winter) weakening the Jet Stream. Seems odd that he only focuses on January, though, and not the whole year, which is showing a clear warming trend, increasing 1.7 degrees Celsius over the last century.

I have also noticed he cuts a few lines from the studies to support his view, even if the study ultimately argues that for anthropegenic climate change (like, he does this on a study about Scandinavian tree rings, and another on North Atlantic dipole). Considering these were the first two studies I clicked, I am not optimistic about the accuracy of his summaries on the rest.

But yeah, I am 21, so fully indoctrinated lol. Most alternative media I find, especially on the right, pulls the aforementioned tricks of data manipulation, so I find it really hard to trust them.

Anyway, I am sure you are super busy, so do you want to continue this discussion in a few days after I read through the website more thoroughly? No worries if not, as I am sure you have more interesting things to do than argue with leftists online (I am just using this as an excuse to procrastinate on my dissertation lol).