Have You Heard That Divorce Now Causes Global Warming?

Question

Now scientist have tied divorce to global warming. Is there anything that DOESN'T cause global warming?

Watch the little leftist now try to get more gvmt regulations into marriage and divorce. After all, it's good for the planet, right?

Anything passes as science these days.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/120307dnnatdivorce.1819f4a.html

Like people don't believe that one spouse already has someone else lined up.

Divorce doesn't always create two homes of the same size. Often it involves movement of three people with little change in resources.

Here's a classic case where people just believe conventional wisdom without doing the science.

Typical.

Answer 1

That's classic. The argument is that splitting a husband and wife turns one household into two, thereby reducing the economies of scale of having everyone in the same house with the same light bulbs, air conditioner, etc. So, that argument also applies to singles, as they also lack those economies of scale. But we saw the news story last week that having kids is bad for the planet. So, the only politically correct lifestyle is to either get married and not have kids or to live in some sort of commune, all singing kumbaya and worshipping Gaia under one common CFL light bulb.

Answer 2

To your additional detais - straight out of your cited article:

"An analysis of data on domestic relations and resource use in the U.S. and 11 other countries shows that divorce leads to more households"

This is a newspaper article trying to put a scientific, peer-reviewed journal article into laymens terms. It simplifies the argument, but still gets this concept that it was a scientific analyses across. I don't think Dr. Lui was able to publish with "conventional wisdom" listed in his methods section. The entire study was about what happens to divorced couples, and how their resource use changes. They questioned the conventional wisdom that it would increase, and they discovered - through doing the science - that in this case, the conventional wisdom was correct (it increases)!

Answer 3

Well this is very simple logic, but I'm not surprised it's too complex for you. I'll help you out by going through it step by step. See if you can follow.

When people are married, they live in the same home.

When people get divorced, they live in seperate homes. Thus they use more resources (energy, space, etc.).

Thus obviously divorce leads to greater greenhouse gas emissions, which we all know contribute to global warming.

Thus logically divorce contributes to global warming.

The rest is just hysterical rhetoric. "OMG the pinko commie leftists are gonna outlaw divorce!!!"

Global warming deniers always have to turn simple logic and science into absurd hysterical rhetoric, don't they?

Answer 4

It is clear to me now that life in general causes global warming. The only recourse we now have is to reduce the worlds population. Why are the leftists so opposed to war when it appears to be the answer to their problem?

At the end of the article it says, "Liu, who is married (apparently, happily), suggested that if more people knew the environmental consequences of divorce, more of them might choose to stay together." Like staying together for their children is not a good enough reason.

Answer 5

Bob's answer ROCKS!

The only thing I can add is the article came from a right of center source, so I'm sure it was an attempt by intelligent conservatives to join in the fight to halt global climate change, from their perspective of things dearest to their heart... the input is great and I hope it can be an incentive for people to come together and have positive input.

So, once again the Dr. eats his own young...

AHO!

Answer 6

Boy this is a difficult one. As a right-wing political hack do you fall in favor of bashing the global warming aspect of the article or bashing the divorce aspect. Choices, choices. But innovation is alive! I see some have squirmed a way to do both.

Answer 7

"Here's a classic case where people just believe conventional wisdom without doing the science."

Isn't that exactly what you just did?

They did actual research and you said you don't believe it because ....well...it doesn't sound true.

They reported facts: there are fewer people per household. If some wackiness results from that, don't blame the messenger.

Answer 8

Are you sure it isn't global warming that causes divorce?

So does divorce lead of follow the temperature rise? We need graphs!

Answer 9

This is wonderful. A classic example of rhetoric versus scientific fact. Everyone should PLEASE read your citation.

Do you seriously question the fact that splitting up families will cause more resources to be used?

I doubt that "leftists' like these will be trying to use the fact to get more government regulation, though:

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story this past week calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

"I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

LARRY's second paragraph is great. And population is important, but we can change energy sources and efficiency much faster and easier.

Answer 10

lol i agree with larry.. if a couple are splitting up and ruining their children's lives, their not going to reconsider and try to make up just to make a .00000000000000000000000000000000000000001% difference in the amount of global energy usage. (estimate)