Rudds a Dudd, and so are people who believe in global warming

Uncle Rudd wants to get rid of indecent bulbs in replacement for wound fluro bulbs. As they are
better for the environment. Guess what, they're not, sure incandescent vacuum formed bulbs use more energy,
but energy is made by power stations. Power stations, especially coal, produce pollution. Make a better
god damn power station, his government is the one that wiped nuclear power off the table in government discussions,

Australia is the best country out of ANY in the world to have nuclear power, and we DONT. We have the best space to build it, the best resources in the ground to feed it, and the best space in the ground to store its crap. It is the
best cleanest most efficient energy.

People don't realize, to make a fluro bulb, chemicals have to be produced, for chemical production, there are waste chemicals that go somewhere. When the fluro cracks open on its way to the dump, more chemicals are disposed into the world. They might use less energy, last a bit longer, but the light they make is shit house. They are expensive to produce and are NOT a solution to energy. Which was never a problem.

This comes back to his speil about carbon emissions, carbon emission tax, he wants to tax Australians for the carbon they produce, which is plain silly. Firstly, as some of you might not be aware, carbon is a heavy molecule, it doesnt go into the atmosphere, hell even oxygen cant even go high into the atmosphere. An example is the top of Mt Everest, where oxygen levels are low. What makes you think a heavier molecule can go higher? Secondly, a chap name Dr David Evans (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html), who has numerous accolades, a few phds and degrees to his name, USED to work for the Government finding information about this crap. He resigned, no longer works for them, he could do nothing but find information that disproved the carbon theory. Basically in 1997 earth core data analysis found certain things, but only accurate to a few 1000 years. New tests show much more accurate results. Especially the fact that put simply, the temperature of the atmosphere, effects how much carbon can be supported, not the amount of carbon effecting the temperature. He goes on to explain how the higher the carbon level in the atmosphere, the more plants consume, and the greater plant growth is. It goes through cycles. If there are less plants on the earth, they do get cut down which sucks, which means there is less absorbed, and more in the atmosphere. But the plants left, through the process of photo synthesis, absorb more and become bigger and more plentiful. Yeah we produce a fair quantity of carbon, but carbons not the issue, there are many more bigger issues. The greatest being methane from cattle production. Which could quite easily be collected and used from cattle, with some seedy device that goes up their but and separates methane from poo, but it would never happen. Even though livestock cause more damage to the atmospheric environment that anything else. The temperatures recorded for global warming data, were put in places over 50 years ago, towns have crept up to these units and what is known as a phenomenon, whereby a city emits hear in a several kilometer radius effects these readings, but data collected from satellites, three dimensionally mapping the earths temperatures, actually show a decline in temperature world wide by a small amount over a long period, no signs at all of a temperature increase in any country.

The next thing is peoples obsession with electric things. Like solar power, people don't realize that the amount of energy used to create a solar panel, is never recouped in its lifespan. Ie the factor equipment uses more energy to produce them, than they produce. So they are only a solution for people who need power and are unable to get it from another source, not a replacement. Not to mention most decent setups need batteries, which use a lot of energy to produce, and have finite life spans and are in effect very inefficient. Not to mention costly and hard to dispose.

This applies also to hybrid cars, like the Toyota prius. The initial purchase price over say a yaris, is NEVER recouped through fuel savings. They dont even use that much less fuel than a yaris. But the worst part is that the batteries they hold cause a hell of a lot of pollution in the creation, are expensive, and need replacing. Its just not viable, and people who buy them, and their i phones will tell you all these little facts, but in the end, they ARE NOT viable. You ar better off having a tiny car like a polo tsi (turbo supercharger induction) which still goes pretty well and uses basically no fuel. Which can be a renewable source of energy if society put enough effort in.