https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/climate-change-v-gl...
Both terms were in common usage, with "climate change" existing before "global warming". It's not "rebranding" to realize that of the various terms in common usage, one of them is more accurate. "climate change" started rising relatively in popularity around 1994 after being roughly equal to "global warming", a decade before Watts' conspiracy theories.
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/4141.... > https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/14/the-conversation-ther...
Anthony Watts dances around understanding here, and writes "It is an unequivocal fact that the terms “climate change” and “global warming” have both been in use for a long time." So he agrees with the link I posted above. The PDF doesn't disagree, much as he'd like it to. Saying "climate change might be a better labelling than global warming" isn't saying "therefore we should rebrand it". It's agreeing that "climate change" is better than "global warming", but then detailing why "climate change" doesn't even capture everything going on.
> https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a30524/renaming-g...
That's honestly just a bad title. The article can be summed up however by the last sentence: "Rebranding a complex issue that most people think has already been rebranded ...". In other words, it disagrees with you: there was no rebranding from "global warming" to "climate change".
> https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-science-adviser-... > https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/a-rebranding-for-... > https://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/global-warming-re...
Holdren is saying why "global warming" isn't a great term. He's not arguing for a rebranding, he's pointing out why it stopped being as popular of a term 15 years prior to his speech. He does argue for rebranding to "global climate disruption", but that's irrelevant to your claim about "global warming" vs "climate change".
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-... > https://www.euronews.com/green/2019/05/20/guardian-style-gui...
This is a rebranding, from "climate change" to "climate crisis". We can argue about whether it's a good change, but it's irrelevant to your claim about "global warming" vs "climate change".
> https://www.quora.com/Why-did-people-start-using-the-term-cl...
Almost all of the answers there point out that it's a myth, agreeing with the skepticalscience.com link I posted above. The few answers that try to push that myth are diatribes that don't cite any supporting evidence.