They are explicitly saying global warming which is the term du jour.
Global warming is the old term. Climate change is the new one.
But I don't think how the article is framing it is problematic. AGW has greatly increased the net rate of ice melting in most of the world. I'm not an archaeologist, but I would suspect that means things buried in ice are being exposed much more frequently now. So while other causes (eg non-anthropogenic or local warming) would have driven previous exposures, AGW might be the primary cause these days.
If that's true, then laying it out like the article does makes complete sense: AGW-driven melting is exposing what's under the ice, and the new research suggests that there may be more interesting remains under the ice than previously thought, so hikers might find some interesting stuff over the next decades.
The implication is that either lower case climate change is a periodic thing or else something doesn't follow.
They also could have said "the climate has changed in the past, and today is no different".
But perhaps that would get them cancelled...
I was referring to this:
> In addition, as ice continues to melt as a result of global warming, the findings suggest hikers—and researchers—may want to keep their eyes peeled for even more remarkable finds like Ötzi.
Which is in the prior paragraph.