Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Laurel V on December 2, 2011 at 10:59pm

sadly I dont see anyone managing to get out of any UN agreements once signed.

the way I read the few specific paragraphs concerning  the climate con around copenhagen time.

once signed, it then takes the APPROVAL of ALL other signatories to cancel said deal.

now if aus wants to  cease and desist the insane laws re water land climate etc etc.

we MUST have the agreement of some 193 or 7?  other nations..

and seeing as THEY stand to profit a Lot, especially 3rd world and moneygrabbing islands like tuvalu, who see the worlds waking up to carbon fantasies as a severe threat to a nice handout to them, ditto africa and others.

what chance do you reckon we have of getting us out of it?

yup.

a Big fat ZERO!!!

ie the ability to TAX both on farm dam water AND to calculate the roof area and TAX homeowners for rainfall on said roof was part of the LIMA agreement hidden in the fine print.

so what Mt Barker councils trying to do(taxing on farm dams for all bar 10% on total collected) IS enforcable by the convention we idiotically agreed to back then. expect the rainwater tax soon.

the Liar needs a new outfit or twenty to impress  Sotero.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Petterson on December 4, 2011 at 12:43pm

Can't we just tell the U.N that we regard all agreements made by a previous government as "null and void" and therefore we don't consider ourselves bound by such agreements?

Laurel V said:

sadly I dont see anyone managing to get out of any UN agreements once signed.

the way I read the few specific paragraphs concerning  the climate con around copenhagen time.

once signed, it then takes the APPROVAL of ALL other signatories to cancel said deal.

now if aus wants to  cease and desist the insane laws re water land climate etc etc.

we MUST have the agreement of some 193 or 7?  other nations..

and seeing as THEY stand to profit a Lot, especially 3rd world and moneygrabbing islands like tuvalu, who see the worlds waking up to carbon fantasies as a severe threat to a nice handout to them, ditto africa and others.

what chance do you reckon we have of getting us out of it?

yup.

a Big fat ZERO!!!

ie the ability to TAX both on farm dam water AND to calculate the roof area and TAX homeowners for rainfall on said roof was part of the LIMA agreement hidden in the fine print.

so what Mt Barker councils trying to do(taxing on farm dams for all bar 10% on total collected) IS enforcable by the convention we idiotically agreed to back then. expect the rainwater tax soon.

the Liar needs a new outfit or twenty to impress  Sotero.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Laurel V on December 29, 2011 at 12:36am

nice thought Michael , but its one of those Hotel california style clubs.

you can check out anytime...but you can never leave...

Michael Petterson said:

Can't we just tell the U.N that we regard all agreements made by a previous government as "null and void" and therefore we don't consider ourselves bound by such agreements?

Laurel V said:

sadly I dont see anyone managing to get out of any UN agreements once signed.

the way I read the few specific paragraphs concerning  the climate con around copenhagen time.

once signed, it then takes the APPROVAL of ALL other signatories to cancel said deal.

now if aus wants to  cease and desist the insane laws re water land climate etc etc.

we MUST have the agreement of some 193 or 7?  other nations..

and seeing as THEY stand to profit a Lot, especially 3rd world and moneygrabbing islands like tuvalu, who see the worlds waking up to carbon fantasies as a severe threat to a nice handout to them, ditto africa and others.

what chance do you reckon we have of getting us out of it?

yup.

a Big fat ZERO!!!

ie the ability to TAX both on farm dam water AND to calculate the roof area and TAX homeowners for rainfall on said roof was part of the LIMA agreement hidden in the fine print.

so what Mt Barker councils trying to do(taxing on farm dams for all bar 10% on total collected) IS enforcable by the convention we idiotically agreed to back then. expect the rainwater tax soon.

the Liar needs a new outfit or twenty to impress  Sotero.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert William Nickisson on December 31, 2011 at 2:29pm

Hi Laurel V,

 No country can be expected to bankrupt itself to pay UN commitments that were not taken before it's Federal Parliament and voted upon by the peoples Representatives in that Parliament. The same applies to Climate Change Laws.

Just refuse to pay “SIMPLY put the payments on the back burner until the Nation can afford them and someone with BRAINS that means none of the current crew renegotiate a reduction in our commitments more in keeping with our ability to manage rather than impress and lead the World that is the stated policy of Julia the liar Gillard.

 What can the UN do?  Send in their ARMY? What Army?  The army left now that the US has up sticks and departed the remanent of the army that the US lead to defeat that has lost the war and remain unwanted by most in Afghanistan today?

Future Australian deaths occurring there and many more will pay the price when the Taliban desire it to happen as they have complete under ground control of the Country, and more importantly the minds of most  Islamic people and those also who attend Friday prayers in the Mosques including those trained and armed and wearing Afghanistan Army uniforms. As the UN forces are finding out to their pathetic amazement. Our future causalities will be the sole consequence of our moron Dictator Julia the Liar Gillard's must stay policy. What’s a few dead anyway it won't stand in the way of her worked for grand position in the UN later on.

The following taken currently from Wiki encyclopaedia on the Internet

 The UN has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. Since 1985 the U.S. Congress has refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.

After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the UN negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%. The reduction in the assessment rate ceiling was among the reforms contained in the 1999 Helms-Biden legislation, which links payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the UN and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.

U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; at present, there are no plans to pay these amounts.

Robert William Nickisson

Laurel V said:

nice thought Michael , but its one of those Hotel california style clubs.

you can check out anytime...but you can never leave...

Michael Petterson said:

Can't we just tell the U.N that we regard all agreements made by a previous government as "null and void" and therefore we don't consider ourselves bound by such agreements?

Laurel V said:

sadly I dont see anyone managing to get out of any UN agreements once signed.

the way I read the few specific paragraphs concerning  the climate con around copenhagen time.

once signed, it then takes the APPROVAL of ALL other signatories to cancel said deal.

now if aus wants to  cease and desist the insane laws re water land climate etc etc.

we MUST have the agreement of some 193 or 7?  other nations..

and seeing as THEY stand to profit a Lot, especially 3rd world and moneygrabbing islands like tuvalu, who see the worlds waking up to carbon fantasies as a severe threat to a nice handout to them, ditto africa and others.

what chance do you reckon we have of getting us out of it?

yup.

a Big fat ZERO!!!

ie the ability to TAX both on farm dam water AND to calculate the roof area and TAX homeowners for rainfall on said roof was part of the LIMA agreement hidden in the fine print.

so what Mt Barker councils trying to do(taxing on farm dams for all bar 10% on total collected) IS enforcable by the convention we idiotically agreed to back then. expect the rainwater tax soon.

the Liar needs a new outfit or twenty to impress  Sotero.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on December 31, 2011 at 4:05pm

Yup! Just refuse to pay. The Eureka thought going through my mind is if the product or service does not disclose the GST and the CT (Carbon Tax) then don't buy it in protest. If the product or service discloses the CT then don't buy it anyway because the CT is created by fraud. How would the supplier as an instrument of Government to collect the tax deal with you if you refused to pay the CT? Now that is an interesting thought too.

Put the onus of action on the supplier who has far greater resources to mount a challenge and how could he be responsible if unable to collect the tax from you or me?
"No taxation without representation" is a valid proposition. If I remember, it sparked a revolution of sorts some years ago.

Bob Stewart the Elder

Robert William Nickisson said:

Hi Laurel V,

 No country can be expected to bankrupt itself to pay UN commitments that were not taken before it's Federal Parliament and voted upon by the peoples Representatives in that Parliament. The same applies to Climate Change Laws.

Just refuse to pay “SIMPLY put the payments on the back burner until the Nation can afford them and someone with BRAINS that means none of the current crew renegotiate a reduction in our commitments more in keeping with our ability to manage rather than impress and lead the World that is the stated policy of Julia the liar Gillard.

 What can the UN do?  Send in their ARMY? What Army?  The army left now that the US has up sticks and departed the remanent of the army that the US lead to defeat that has lost the war and remain unwanted by most in Afghanistan today?

Future Australian deaths occurring there and many more will pay the price when the Taliban desire it to happen as they have complete under ground control of the Country, and more importantly the minds of most  Islamic people and those also who attend Friday prayers in the Mosques including those trained and armed and wearing Afghanistan Army uniforms. As the UN forces are finding out to their pathetic amazement. Our future causalities will be the sole consequence of our moron Dictator Julia the Liar Gillard's must stay policy. What’s a few dead anyway it won't stand in the way of her worked for grand position in the UN later on.

The following taken currently from Wiki encyclopaedia on the Internet

 The UN has always had problems with members refusing to pay the assessment levied upon them under the United Nations Charter. But the most significant refusal in recent times has been that of the U.S. Since 1985 the U.S. Congress has refused to authorize payment of the U.S. dues, in order to force UN compliance with U.S. wishes, as well as a reduction in the U.S. assessment.

After prolonged negotiations, the U.S. and the UN negotiated an agreement whereby the United States would pay a large part of the money it owes, and in exchange the UN would reduce the assessment rate ceiling from 25% to 22%. The reduction in the assessment rate ceiling was among the reforms contained in the 1999 Helms-Biden legislation, which links payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the UN and other international organizations to a series of reform benchmarks.

U.S. arrears to the UN currently total over $1.3 billion. Of this, $612 million is payable under Helms-Biden. The remaining $700 million result from various legislative and policy withholdings; at present, there are no plans to pay these amounts.

Robert William Nickisson

Laurel V said:

nice thought Michael , but its one of those Hotel california style clubs.

you can check out anytime...but you can never leave...

Michael Petterson said:

Can't we just tell the U.N that we regard all agreements made by a previous government as "null and void" and therefore we don't consider ourselves bound by such agreements?

Laurel V said:

sadly I dont see anyone managing to get out of any UN agreements once signed.

the way I read the few specific paragraphs concerning  the climate con around copenhagen time.

once signed, it then takes the APPROVAL of ALL other signatories to cancel said deal.

now if aus wants to  cease and desist the insane laws re water land climate etc etc.

we MUST have the agreement of some 193 or 7?  other nations..

and seeing as THEY stand to profit a Lot, especially 3rd world and moneygrabbing islands like tuvalu, who see the worlds waking up to carbon fantasies as a severe threat to a nice handout to them, ditto africa and others.

what chance do you reckon we have of getting us out of it?

yup.

a Big fat ZERO!!!

ie the ability to TAX both on farm dam water AND to calculate the roof area and TAX homeowners for rainfall on said roof was part of the LIMA agreement hidden in the fine print.

so what Mt Barker councils trying to do(taxing on farm dams for all bar 10% on total collected) IS enforcable by the convention we idiotically agreed to back then. expect the rainwater tax soon.

the Liar needs a new outfit or twenty to impress  Sotero.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pam Hushing on January 28, 2012 at 9:54am

Hi Robert,

"No country can be expected to bankrupt itself to pay UN commitments that were not taken before it's Federal Parliament and voted upon by the peoples Representatives in that Parliament. The same applies to Climate Change Laws."

 

Yes Robert, that's excactly what they want - bankrupt us - we are then easier to control.

The following video of G. Edward Griffin shows it perfectly - just change US for Australia - it's excactly the same pattern, whether we want to believe it or not: The video is quite long - but it's worth it:

 

 
Cheers

Pam
Robert William Nickisson said:

Hi Laurel V,

 No country can be expected to bankrupt itself to pay UN commitments that were not taken before it's Federal Parliament and voted upon by the peoples Representatives in that Parliament. The same applies to Climate Change Laws.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dennis "DARBY" Brierley on January 28, 2012 at 1:19pm

i agree mostly with what you say Robert William Nickisson.

however as to building new dams, where exactly would these be built?

most of the rivers we have are already in catchment areas,

so any new dams would only be taking water from existing catchments.

an alternative to this is creating a pipeline into the norther part of the murray darling basement catchment from northern qld or ord river scheme in wa. then the water would be a continous flow down through the driest parts off australia increasing the productivity of the outback.

an alternative to this is to pipe water from ord river / lake argyle down to lake ayre.

as this is a shallow lake it would create evaporation increasing moisture in the atmosphere, creating clouds and rain throughout central australia.

or we could allow all other nations to test their nuclear weapons over here.

the other nations would pay billions of dollars for the chance to test their weapons so its a win win.

starting at port augusta and blowing a big trench up to lake eyre, again flooding the lake and allowing evaporation to create clouds and rain in the outback.

if it doesn't create rain then we'll have enough money to drag in some iceburgs for fresh water.

just a couple of alternative ideas to the building dams ideas.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert William Nickisson on January 28, 2012 at 3:41pm

 

Hi Darby, That is for Engineers when given the project by some GOVERNMENT with a forward vision FURTHER than the NEXT ELECTION or this Climate Change UN driven World Government ideal to determine.  Australia once had such Governments and the Snowy River scheme resulted. It as massive project an Ord River supply pipeline but will give Australia in the future security of Water, food production farming lands (the Israeli watered a desert and turned it into a green oasis.) Australia can do the same. You have provided the answer I would have suggested to you. Bring (Pipeline Water) from the ORD River to the Centre and East of Australia and distribute it as necessary and differing seasons make necessary. And as you say thus increasing the productivity of the now outback waste land. The supply of Water gives life.  It appears unlikely to happen as this Australia is becoming as divided as politically motivated specific Government agendas can devise under the divide and rule Political Control trick. Control Water  allow now further Dams, ,Control Electricity forbid the use of cheap coal and price it out of peoples capacity to use and the Nation becomes a collection of serfs forced to do any Governments bidding. Whether Australia will be ever able to recover after this Government is removed is debateable. First we must like Canada cut the United Nations from any control of our Nation or all future Governments will just serve to implement their dictated UN policies to the detriment of Australia’s freedoms, democracy, Independence and Sovereignty. Robert WN.

Dennis "DARBY" Brierley said:

i agree mostly with what you say Robert William Nickisson.

however as to building new dams, where exactly would these be built?

most of the rivers we have are already in catchment areas,

so any new dams would only be taking water from existing catchments.

an alternative to this is creating a pipeline into the norther part of the murray darling basement catchment from northern qld or ord river scheme in wa. then the water would be a continous flow down through the driest parts off australia increasing the productivity of the outback.

an alternative to this is to pipe water from ord river / lake argyle down to lake ayre.

as this is a shallow lake it would create evaporation increasing moisture in the atmosphere, creating clouds and rain throughout central australia.

or we could allow all other nations to test their nuclear weapons over here.

the other nations would pay billions of dollars for the chance to test their weapons so its a win win.

starting at port augusta and blowing a big trench up to lake eyre, again flooding the lake and allowing evaporation to create clouds and rain in the outback.

if it doesn't create rain then we'll have enough money to drag in some iceburgs for fresh water.

just a couple of alternative ideas to the building dams ideas.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert William Nickisson on January 28, 2012 at 3:54pm

Hi Pam, I agree with you and thank you for the video I will watch it with interest but I totally object to this policy of the brainless RUDD or Juliar tripping overseas to commit Australia to huge sums of money promised to all and sundary on the whim of buying Australia a seat on the UN security Council. Security we cannot secure Australia's borders. Everywhere you turn it's not policy for Australia's benefit but to please or further the unelected UN's policy aims. None of UN's aims are intended to benefit Australia. regards Robert WN
.Pam Hushing said:

Hi Robert,

"No country can be expected to bankrupt itself to pay UN commitments that were not taken before it's Federal Parliament and voted upon by the peoples Representatives in that Parliament. The same applies to Climate Change Laws."

 

Yes Robert, that's excactly what they want - bankrupt us - we are then easier to control.

The following video of G. Edward Griffin shows it perfectly - just change US for Australia - it's excactly the same pattern, whether we want to believe it or not: The video is quite long - but it's worth it:

 

 
Cheers

Pam
Robert William Nickisson said:

Hi Laurel V,

 No country can be expected to bankrupt itself to pay UN commitments that were not taken before it's Federal Parliament and voted upon by the peoples Representatives in that Parliament. The same applies to Climate Change Laws.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Stewart on January 28, 2012 at 4:08pm

Dont let anyone tell you that you are far out Dennis. It is the thinkers like you who see things far more differently than through a glass tainted with gold. The Snowy Scheme is there for all to see the work of thinkers to tunnel the damaging floods back westwards to the MDB, our major food bowl.

Having built the Ramco Heights Irrigation Area at Waikerie on the Murray in the 60-70's,such projects should continue. I have long been a passionate advocate to systematically increase our food production by flood control storage and tunnel diversions in the Queensland catchment. That it is 10 years too late is no more  evident than the death and destruction in the Lockyer Valley maybe repeated as this is being written. Lake Argyle to Burke on the Darling may be too large ....for the present.

In either plan, the downstream infrastructure for distribution already exists with the Morgan Whyalla  and the Mannum Adelaide Pipelines below Wentworth as a means of supporting the needs of increased population  Lake Argyle to Lake Eyre is a separate enviro issue, if there be enough water to do so.

Ref:World Bank, "100 million at Risk From Rising Food Costs" (ABC April 2008)
      International Conference Rome. "UN ,Boost Food Production 50% by 2030" (June 2008)
      Centre for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute,"World Needs More Irrigation" April 2001

  (

Dennis "DARBY" Brierley said:

i agree mostly with what you say Robert William Nickisson.

however as to building new dams, where exactly would these be built?

most of the rivers we have are already in catchment areas,

so any new dams would only be taking water from existing catchments.

an alternative to this is creating a pipeline into the norther part of the murray darling basement catchment from northern qld or ord river scheme in wa. then the water would be a continous flow down through the driest parts off australia increasing the productivity of the outback.

an alternative to this is to pipe water from ord river / lake argyle down to lake ayre.

as this is a shallow lake it would create evaporation increasing moisture in the atmosphere, creating clouds and rain throughout central australia.

or we could allow all other nations to test their nuclear weapons over here.

the other nations would pay billions of dollars for the chance to test their weapons so its a win win.

starting at port augusta and blowing a big trench up to lake eyre, again flooding the lake and allowing evaporation to create clouds and rain in the outback.

if it doesn't create rain then we'll have enough money to drag in some iceburgs for fresh water.

just a couple of alternative ideas to the building dams ideas.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by vivienne skeen on January 29, 2012 at 12:58pm

The United Nations is not YET the rulers of the world, but unless we ALL wake up to exactly what the UN are doing, and what  traitorous politicians World wide are doing, the United Nations will control the World and it will be a "Totalitarian Ruled World".

The United Nations have already infiltrated every part of our lives with their Sustainable Development Agenda 21 policies, and the likes of Gatt and Kyoto etc, etc. Both sides of politics are to blame for this.

Keating signed Australia in to the UN SD A21 in 1992, but Howard was in for 12/13 years, why didn't he remove it, why didn't he give us a referendum on it, where are our democratic rights.

We the People have to take a more active role in what our Governments are doing and we have to start today, it is not too late.

Please watch these videos, they will tell you about Agenda 21, and Smart Meters and the Smart Grid,

We the People have got to take back control. Australia is still a Sovereign Nation.

http://vimeo.com/28247826

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkcsdObf-94&feature=related

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/10692-am...
Bob Stewart said:

Dont let anyone tell you that you are far out Dennis. It is the thinkers like you who see things far more differently than through a glass tainted with gold. The Snowy Scheme is there for all to see the work of thinkers to tunnel the damaging floods back westwards to the MDB, our major food bowl.

Having built the Ramco Heights Irrigation Area at Waikerie on the Murray in the 60-70's,such projects should continue. I have long been a passionate advocate to systematically increase our food production by flood control storage and tunnel diversions in the Queensland catchment. That it is 10 years too late is no more  evident than the death and destruction in the Lockyer Valley maybe repeated as this is being written. Lake Argyle to Burke on the Darling may be too large ....for the present.

In either plan, the downstream infrastructure for distribution already exists with the Morgan Whyalla  and the Mannum Adelaide Pipelines below Wentworth as a means of supporting the needs of increased population  Lake Argyle to Lake Eyre is a separate enviro issue, if there be enough water to do so.

Ref:World Bank, "100 million at Risk From Rising Food Costs" (ABC April 2008)
      International Conference Rome. "UN ,Boost Food Production 50% by 2030" (June 2008)
      Centre for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute,"World Needs More Irrigation" April 2001

  (

Dennis "DARBY" Brierley said:

i agree mostly with what you say Robert William Nickisson.

however as to building new dams, where exactly would these be built?

most of the rivers we have are already in catchment areas,

so any new dams would only be taking water from existing catchments.

an alternative to this is creating a pipeline into the norther part of the murray darling basement catchment from northern qld or ord river scheme in wa. then the water would be a continous flow down through the driest parts off australia increasing the productivity of the outback.

an alternative to this is to pipe water from ord river / lake argyle down to lake ayre.

as this is a shallow lake it would create evaporation increasing moisture in the atmosphere, creating clouds and rain throughout central australia.

or we could allow all other nations to test their nuclear weapons over here.

the other nations would pay billions of dollars for the chance to test their weapons so its a win win.

starting at port augusta and blowing a big trench up to lake eyre, again flooding the lake and allowing evaporation to create clouds and rain in the outback.

if it doesn't create rain then we'll have enough money to drag in some iceburgs for fresh water.

just a couple of alternative ideas to the building dams ideas.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by vivienne skeen on January 29, 2012 at 1:10pm

vivienne skeen said:

The United Nations is not YET the rulers of the world, but unless we ALL wake up to exactly what the UN are doing, and what  traitorous politicians World wide are doing, the United Nations will control the World and it will be a "Totalitarian Ruled World".

The United Nations have already infiltrated every part of our lives with their Sustainable Development Agenda 21 policies, and the likes of Gatt and Kyoto etc, etc. Both sides of politics are to blame for this.

Keating signed Australia in to the UN SD A21 in 1992, but Howard was in for 12/13 years, why didn't he remove it, why didn't he give us a referendum on it, where are our democratic rights.

We the People have to take a more active role in what our Governments are doing and we have to start today, it is not too late.

Please watch these videos, they will tell you about Agenda 21, and Smart Meters and the Smart Grid,

We the People have got to take back control. Australia is still a Sovereign Nation.

http://vimeo.com/28247826

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkcsdObf-94&feature=related

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/10692-am...
Bob Stewart said:

Dont let anyone tell you that you are far out Dennis. It is the thinkers like you who see things far more differently than through a glass tainted with gold. The Snowy Scheme is there for all to see the work of thinkers to tunnel the damaging floods back westwards to the MDB, our major food bowl.

Having built the Ramco Heights Irrigation Area at Waikerie on the Murray in the 60-70's,such projects should continue. I have long been a passionate advocate to systematically increase our food production by flood control storage and tunnel diversions in the Queensland catchment. That it is 10 years too late is no more  evident than the death and destruction in the Lockyer Valley maybe repeated as this is being written. Lake Argyle to Burke on the Darling may be too large ....for the present.

In either plan, the downstream infrastructure for distribution already exists with the Morgan Whyalla  and the Mannum Adelaide Pipelines below Wentworth as a means of supporting the needs of increased population  Lake Argyle to Lake Eyre is a separate enviro issue, if there be enough water to do so.

Ref:World Bank, "100 million at Risk From Rising Food Costs" (ABC April 2008)
      International Conference Rome. "UN ,Boost Food Production 50% by 2030" (June 2008)
      Centre for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute,"World Needs More Irrigation" April 2001

  (

Dennis "DARBY" Brierley said:

i agree mostly with what you say Robert William Nickisson.

however as to building new dams, where exactly would these be built?

most of the rivers we have are already in catchment areas,

so any new dams would only be taking water from existing catchments.

an alternative to this is creating a pipeline into the norther part of the murray darling basement catchment from northern qld or ord river scheme in wa. then the water would be a continous flow down through the driest parts off australia increasing the productivity of the outback.

an alternative to this is to pipe water from ord river / lake argyle down to lake ayre.

as this is a shallow lake it would create evaporation increasing moisture in the atmosphere, creating clouds and rain throughout central australia.

or we could allow all other nations to test their nuclear weapons over here.

the other nations would pay billions of dollars for the chance to test their weapons so its a win win.

starting at port augusta and blowing a big trench up to lake eyre, again flooding the lake and allowing evaporation to create clouds and rain in the outback.

if it doesn't create rain then we'll have enough money to drag in some iceburgs for fresh water.

just a couple of alternative ideas to the building dams ideas.

 

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page