They are the same thing. "Climate change" was coined by Republican strategist, Frank Lunz, to replace "global warming" and it was adopted by the Bush administration. The rationale being climate change sounds less severe than global warming.
The climate/cycles are changing because its becoming warmer which is a threat to our current environment. The planet has been warming since the last ice age, an era with a totally different environment. Is that about right?
Point of the poll is that they're the same thing. It's about as close to a scientific certainty as you can get. It's just been politicized now, so both sides have dug in and taken up their positions. It's like a 50/50 political debate, 98/2 scientific debate. The argument should be now what are the consequences and magnitude of it and what should be done about it. Instead, we're still stuck on whether or not it's happening and some of this is because big industries, esp coal and oil are opposed to it. Basically, like how they tobacco industry refused to admit cigarettes were harmful or addictive despite their own evidence to the contrary. They kept up that masquerade for decades because they had the money to fund it.
Also, it's a global/transnational problem and therefore has global/transnational solutions. They doesn't fit well with conservatives who think problems should be solved at the individual/state levels. If you don't like the treatment of your diagnosis, deny the diagnosis. I don't think anyone can honestly look at the scientific evidence and pretend it's not going on.