There has been a dedicated effort to rebrand "global warming" as "climate change." A cynic might note that no set of observations is inconsistent with climate change.
(There is a less cynical take on the matter which goes something along the lines of "Climate is distinct from individual temperature measurements and is a highly localized phenomenon. If the phenomenon described as 'global warming' came to pass, some places are going to get 'hotter' and some might get 'colder', because the atmosphere is really freaking complicated. Additionally, climate has things which are interrelated but distinct from temperature, such that humans in a particular region might really care about e.g. precipitation patterns changing radically enough to disrupt their agriculture even though they do not experience local changes in observed temperatures. Also, lay people tend to think 'Brr, this is a particularly cold winter, guess global warming isn't happening' but that is perfectly consistent with warming elsewhere and even warming right there, because even with a warming trend there will still be cold days and the usual variation in temperature cycles, and because people suck at measuring everything.")
Not sure why you got down voted, its a valid observation At some point the science will catch up and we'll have a better understanding of what factors change the climate both anthropogenic and what ever the opposite of that word is. Since ice ages aren't really 'global warming' but they are valid 'climate change' the latter seems to be a better category name for the phenomena.
A cynic would note that the brand 'Global Warming' has been co-opted by a bunch of folks who would rather you were required to live your life to their rules, rather than the existing rules, and so use the threat of human extinction as a bludgeon to mould the less scientifically minded.
" bunch of folks who would rather you were required to live your life to their rules"
This is a better description of the people who want me to live by their rules - the people who want to burn lots of coal, for instance. I get to live with their emissions, whether I like it or not.
I think we agree. Doesn't matter if the people defining the 'right' way to live are Catholics, Jews, Christians, Warmists, Marxists, Anarchists, or any other.
Group A, demands behavior B, threatens consequence C if people don't adhere to the rules.
Sometimes the threat is positioned as a natural consequence "if you give up your civil liberties you give others the power to disappear you", sometimes the agent is more faith based like "if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior you won't get into heaven and live with the angels."
Much of the warmist rhetoric is akin to religion "If you don't change your ways you will burn in an over warm planet." Much of the warming science is about understanding cause and effect. Trying to talk science with someone whose opinions are based on faith (or emotion) is generally unproductive.
"A cynic might note that no set of observations is inconsistent with climate change"
A set of observations consistent with prior historical observations, and lacking a long term trend up or down, would be inconsistent with climate change.
Edit: the following actually agrees with part of your comment. Reading is fundamental.
"Climate change" is in fact more accurate, because climate also includes things like rainfall. Even if a region doesn't become notably warmer, it may get more rain, or less, which can cause problems if it leads to flooding, or drought.
Also, given the significance of ocean currents in moderating temperatures, if atmospheric warming leads to ocean current changes, then you could get regional cooling. (For example, the theory that cold fresh water from melting ice in the Arctic could disrupt the currents in the Atlantic, which carry warm water north to the UK, which helps the UK be warmer than you'd expect at its latitude. Thus warming -> Canadian ice melting -> cooler UK and northern Europe. Not sure what the current thinking is on this being likely.)
(There is a less cynical take on the matter which goes something along the lines of "Climate is distinct from individual temperature measurements and is a highly localized phenomenon. If the phenomenon described as 'global warming' came to pass, some places are going to get 'hotter' and some might get 'colder', because the atmosphere is really freaking complicated. Additionally, climate has things which are interrelated but distinct from temperature, such that humans in a particular region might really care about e.g. precipitation patterns changing radically enough to disrupt their agriculture even though they do not experience local changes in observed temperatures. Also, lay people tend to think 'Brr, this is a particularly cold winter, guess global warming isn't happening' but that is perfectly consistent with warming elsewhere and even warming right there, because even with a warming trend there will still be cold days and the usual variation in temperature cycles, and because people suck at measuring everything.")