If 'Global Cooling' is consistent with the theory of 'Global Warming'?

His computer model used by NASA scientist Rasool back in 1971, predicted that sustained emissions over five to 10 years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age. So I guess by 1981, which coincidentally was a year after the end of a Global Cooling period (1940-1980), the spin-scientist (a.k.a. Hansen), saw no more low temperatures and conveniently started working on a new theory: GLOBAL WARMING, that led him in 1988 to stand up at the Senate announcing Global Warming and a second doomsday, again in 10 years. Few years after 1998, the spin-scientist declared: “WE WERE JUST LUCKY". I think his cooling-warming-cooling predictions could have 2 possible explanations: 1) Hansen's brain cells are in short circuit, or 2) He is insulting peoples’ intelligence.

You might find this article VERY interesting. http://www.icr.org/article/4128/

There is no global cooling. As seen in the movie and the inconvenient truth, the generally tendency is upward, with about a degree and a half average temperature increase all around the world in the past several years, so that even though it is possible that some places may seem colder than in the past, the general trend is to the contrary.

There is an excellent new book out that will debunk many of the myths propagated by James Hansen and many of the other Global Warming hysterics and alarmists. The name of the book is: "Red Hot Lies, How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed" The author is Christopher C. Horner. I bough t my copy at Barnes and Noble book store, but the book should be available at any good book store or they will order the book for you. The book is also available at Amazon.com The book is very well researched, and is thoroughly sourced. The footnoting is excellent. I am approximately half way through the book and it has been a real eye opener to see the sorts of deception that are practiced by the Global Warming hysterics. I always knew there was some deception but I did not have actual documented proof of the Deception or the extent to which the deception is taking place. I recommend that you get this book and study it thoroughly if you really want to understand what is going on in the Global Warming Hysterics and Alarmists community.

I can see skepticism about man causing global warming but how can you be skeptical about global warming itself? With glaciers that took thousands of years to build up in Glaciers National Park just gone. Not even snow there, what is the controversy in Global Warming. When the Northwest passage opens up in the polar ice cap for the first time in recorded history how can you question global warming itself? I respect you because you are the top answerer in this little group, but really wish you would take the time to explain to me how global warming is controversial? My email is not blocked.

claiming that hansen supported the idea of global cooling or "sounded the alarms" because he wrote 1 computer program for a scientist who was studying this concept is not being honest, but it makes sense that you would use this connection since the skeptic movement is supported by fallacy.

Yes and no. After studying mostly environmental areas at A-Level (Earth Sciences, Geography, Geology & Biology) I can say there is both present. However, the time periods are different. In the past there has been big increases fallowed closly with big decreases. Personally I think it is as magma from the mantle gets closer to the surface it causes more erumptions that leads to, for a short time, major increases of temperature (not only from the magma but also from the CO2 explelled). However, because of the other gasses, IE SO4, causes a cooling period (for example look at the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa which caused a global cooling)