If you have had good or negative results from other theories, you might let others know here.

The forum, its administration and Peter Andrews do not endorse any posts nor have any public statements to make about any theory other than NSF.

Individual poster's are responsible for all their own posts. This forum has no comment to make on them, however in the public interest we will allow them to be viewed.

Moderator: webmaster

Post Reply
Shirley Henderson
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 4:03 pm
Location: Thirlmere


Post by Shirley Henderson » Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:01 pm

Apparently CSIRO has changed it's name to UNESCO.
Pasted from site...International Hydrological Program IHP is UNESCO's international scientific cooperative programme in water research, water resources management, education and capacity-building, and the only broadly-based science programme of the UN system in this area.
to act as a vehicle through which Member States, cooperating professional and scientific organizations and individual experts can upgrade their knowledge of the water cycle, thereby increasing their capacity to better manage and develop their water resources
to develop techniques, methodologies and approaches to better define hydrological phenomena
to improve water management, locally and globally

to act as a catalyst to stimulate cooperation and dialogue in water science and management

to assess the sustainable development of vulnerable water resources

to serve as a platform for increasing awareness of global water issues.

The planning, definition of priorities, and supervision of the execution of IHP are ensured by the Intergovernmental Council. The Bureau of the Intergovernmental Council of the IHP co-ordinates the work of the Council between sessions.

WHY IS PETER NOT INVOLVED IN THIS? He is an important individual expert here! He may not have the same view as others but that is a good reason to have him on it to represent a different view!!! He knows so much about water hydrology in the Australian landscape. All countries cannot be treated the same. There always needs to be representatives from different background on committes that effect our future as a whole and this seems to be proffessionals and people with one sided views. That is not a good representation of who should be indicating the future of our water practises in Australia.
http://www.unesco.org/water/ihp/nat_rep ... 008_en.pdf

Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:50 am
Location: melbourne

Post by ColinJEly » Tue Aug 12, 2008 4:07 pm

Why Shirley
Because these things are run by the same 'watermelons' who tell us that dams don't make water! Ask Mr Brumby betcha he has at least one of these 'non-water making' dams on his farm. Same as why we haven't built a non-poluting nuclear power station in this country. Where are the solar panels on all government buildings? Problems with the Murray-Darling? If we can build the Snowy Mountains Scheme then surely it would be no more dificult to pipe water from the overflowing North Queensland rivers across the divide to the headwaters of the Darling? Why hasn't the Government implemented Peter's practices in the marginal country in Western Victoria?

Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW

Post by duane » Sat Sep 06, 2008 4:26 pm

There are a number of folk voicing their opinions here on the forum but as yet we are not at a critical mass where any self respecting pollie would take any notice of what Peter/we are saying.

Many people have written letters only to get the standard response....if collectively we are to get Peter's knowledge up about the unigue functioning of our landscape we need a TSUNAMI of collective VOICES.

In politics it is not the meek who get heard it is the LOUDEST minority or in this case I would like to think the loudest MAJORITY.

If you dont feel inclined to write directly to APH put your concerns down here....I will see to it they get heard in Canberra....one way or another.

Post Reply