Before activists hijacked the term "climate change," the phrase simply referred to a well-known fact that climate changes over time - always has and always will.
No one would dispute that. At a macro level, we experience periods of significant climate change. The current global climate change is called global warming.
Politically, 'climate change' has come to replace 'global warming' in the popular vernacular, probably because there are way too many yokels who believe that global warming doesn't exist because it is snowing outside.
According to satellite data, there has been no global warming since 2000.
2005 was either the warmest or second-warmest year on record.
Check the IPCC data. So... no?
Maybe satellite data says there hasn't been any warming since 2000 because satellites don't have the ability to measure temperature?
In fact, there has been a cooling in the global average temperature over the last two years.
Irrelevant. Global warming is about long-term trends. There's been a bunch of years over the past century with slight cooling periods. What's relevant is that the overall trend line shows a significant increase over time.
Arctic sea ice levels are at the same level as they were in 1979.
No, they're not. Again, we're concerned with long-term trends. The data point you're referring to indicated that sea ice levels were roughly equal to 1979 levels for ONE day in December.
Taking another day, for example, shows this:
(O)n February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.
That quote is from
this post, which covers the whole "sea ice at 1979 levels!" meme really well.
This shouldn't be a thread about the relative merits of climate science, but you're factually wrong on both points you brought up here.