With all the discussions on how it should be stopped, I seem to have forgotten why we want to stop it to begin with.

I recall there was something said about polar caps melting, but I can't seem to recall how serious the issue was and how much of our world would drown. Besides, if that was all to it then why not just let it do its thing and have it solve the overpopulation issue along the way.

Any other ideas?

I think the issue is all of the pollution going into the atmosphere and destroying the protective barrier that prevents they suns rays from negatively effecting this earth and our health. Not too sure though, not something I worry about too much.

Not too sure about you, but some of us want to live in a healthier atmosphere. But it's not like I'm gonna change any of that.

The reason why Global Warming is a bad thing is because it causes the earth to increase in temperature. Known as the greenhouse effect. Essentially, if the polar ice caps melt, certain parts of the world will be underwater. Not only that but there will be a much larger imbalance in temperature changes during different times of year. Global Warming could essentially change the world as we know it.

Climate changes associated with global warming are projected to contribute to famine and war, resulting in significant net harm to humanity.

Global warming bad? Nah, it's a good thing, and here's why. We've got to get off this stinkin earth at some point. Think of over-population and all the disease and filth infesting this little planet. Global warming may herald a catastrophe, an armageddon, that is just the incentive our pitiful, lazy species needs to get off our fat asses and colonate space and other planets.

So that we can continue to spread as a galactic virus destroying the Universe.

since humanity is an expression of the Universe, the Universe would be destroying itself.

That is a far-fetched statement, IMO.

Maybe humans are really just like the pheonix.

"since humanity is an expression of the Universe, the Universe would be destroying itself."

Conservation of energy would indicate that with death comes new life. Our vital force will go on to continue the expansion (change) of the Universe. This said the universe is not destroying itself, but evolving, and our destruction may be a vital function of this new growth.

IME death is necessary for re-birth, in that I would have to agree.

conservation of energy indicates no such thing. Ever heard of heat death? Please stop preaching your pseudo-science.

You misenterpret what I am saying. Ever consider the fact that your view of what life is, is not the only view?

Now that's some really tough love!

Living in space is hard, very hard. We won't be ready for several hundred years.

I understand both sides of this arguement, conservation of energy is a physical law that has never been proven incorrect. Flex is comparing the death/birth cycle with this in a metaphysical and spiritual way. This is something I do myself and although its unproven, because if theres an unbreakable law of physics then in my view that law will be repeated kaleidoscope-like throughout all the iterations of matter and life. Since no energy is ever destroyed, only transformed, then its not a wild statement to equate that to the universes cycles like birth and death of life and stars, seasons etc. While not science its spirituality grounded in real Truth.