"1) There is global warming
2) There is no global warming
3) Even if there is global warming, it's too minimal to be measured
4) There is global warming, but it is not anthropogenic
5) There is global cooling

And stick to it. I'm having trouble keeping up. "

First, we have to agree upon which definition of global warming you are using. The informal and common usage of term "global warming" is anthropogenic global warming.
Number 4, strongly suggests you are not using this informal usage. Therefore my answer is #1.

And continuing with this definition, I reject #2, unless one referring to longer periods of time [millions of years]. In last millions years, we have been in an Ice Age period with cycles called ice ages [cooling periods] and interglacial periods [warming periods]- at moment we are in a interglacial period- and in the warmest times in any of the interglacial periods, it's been cooler than warmer period which in the time span dwarfs the length time of the Ice Age we are living in.
As for #3, global warming is well within our ability to measure [again, we are still using same definition of global warming]. And it has been within our capability for about hundred years. But if you talking about anthropogenic global warming and the temperature you talking in within .6 C of last Century, and more importantly [in current debate] is in somewhere around .3 C of last 50 years, there are a lot of problems associated to this level of measurement. I could have a lot to say about this, but I'll keep it brief. But since we aren't using that definition, I reject #3 as false.

As for #4. It seems to me that humans are affecting global temperature. On the scale of urban environments, there is no doubt about human activity increasing temperature by a very noticeable and significant amount. Here we talking about regions which are hundreds [or thousands] of sq miles.
And anyone who flown across the US, can see that humans have transformed large regions which are used for farming, modern irrigation is keeping large area wet which otherwise would much drier. What affect this rural land use on global temperature or climate is unknown to me- but it has to be some kind of an effect and perhaps significant.
Urban heat islands are without doubt warming their region and this affect can extend to broader areas such as the state of California. When it is claimed that California over the last several decades has increased it average temperature by 1 or 2 C due to this, I find that a plausible claim. Extending this globally I could believe it's as much as .1 C or so.
So, therefore I don't completely reject #4. Nor do I completely reject that CO2 may be causing some warming- but I'm sure that it's over stated.

As for #5, well it seems to me that recent cooling [or flat temperature] is not as large/prolonged as the cooling periods in the 20th Century. Though I believe it's a possibility that we may have that degree cooling in the future.
I think if by cooling you mean returning to global temperature of the Little Ice Age, I certainly hope not- but I believe sunspot activity would determine if this is a possibility [I can't predict sunspot activity for the next few decades or century]. So, short answer is it is too soon to know, if it's a blip or a significant trend. Past history of our current interglacial period, indicates future warming. The longer history of the Ice Age we are in, indicates far more severe cooling than the Little Ice Age is in our [or children or their children's, ect] future. Short answer to #5 is don't reject it, but the answer for now, is nope.