NCPPR's page on the subject does still call it "Global Warming" though. http://www.nationalcenter.org/Kyoto.html

Among their headlines:

  - Get a Clue, White House: The Planet Isn't Warming
  - Do 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming?
  - Planet Hasn't Warmed Since 1997, Yet Senators Fret the News Media is Covering Actual Crises Instead of Climate Change 

Based on those, I'd say NCPPR is denying that it's happening.

> "The Planet Isn't Warming"

Wow, and here I thought "so-called" was clinching evidence. That's the value of doing your homework!

Global warming dropped from use because it is inaccurate (or more precicly is too broad to be useful). While the global temperature is increasing, there are places that see a decrease. Usually this is due to either changing rainfall patterns (ie, former deserts that now get rain) or changes in ocean currents (eg the potential movement in the current that keeps the UK warm). Climate change is more accurate for people in those areas.

Semantics aside, you seem to have missed the point. This group seems to doubt it is happening at all ("so called" in this case doesn't mean they disagree with the terminology - instead they seem to doubt it is occurring)

> Global warming dropped from use because it is inaccurate (or more precicly is too broad to be useful).

Well, "Climate change" is even broader than "Global warming".

The point is that it's broad in a specific way that makes it easy to misinterpret. Global average temperature increase may not yield local average temperature increase, and the reasons can be complex. Having to first explain that to people that are seeing the opposite of what global warming seems to be saying is a road-block to useful discourse.

It's no longer called global warming because it's too easy for deniers to say, "Look, it's cold! Polar vortex! Therefore it's not happening!" The new terminology is supported by climate scientists to avoid giving the deniers a strawman to argue.

I would guess that they are saying so called because most people who say 'climate change' assume that human-created c02 is the major driver of climate, when all of the detailed measurements taken since the forming of the IPCC have shown that the sensitivity is far lower.

Each IPCC report has increased the confidence of the impact of human emissions, but lowered the effect. So the science says that we are more certain now than before, but that the sensitivity is much lower than understood before. This is great news but most people haven't realized that the scare stories of 10-15 years ago no longer apply. The term 'climate change' is pretty debased though, because it can mean anything from 'natural climate change' to 'Himalayan glaciers are going to melt in 20 years'.

But the wording from this group is silly, there is no doubt.

"Climate change" used to be "global warming" until G.W. Bush's campaign came up with the new name to make it sound like a less alarming phenomenon.

Argh, should have been GHW Bush.

No, you're wrong. "So-called" directly implies that they deny the very existence of climate change.

Both terms have been in use for a long time. When Frank Luntz was a republican strategist he suggested the party use "climate change" exclusively because he believed it sounded less threatening.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326

Actually, it was Bush, via a consultant from Fox News, that changed the language from "global warming" to "climate change." (No joke.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming