Google Find us on Google+

When Climate Alarmists Talk, This Is How You Counter Them

Sep 16, 2017 by

By Henry W. Burke

9.16.17

Henry W. Burke gave a presentation on “Nebraska’s Science Standards Will Indoctrinate Students on Bogus Climate Change” to the Nebraska State Board of Education during the September 8, 2017 Meeting.  His 5-minute talk begins at Time Mark 26:50 and ends at 31:50.  This is the Link to the State Board Meeting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TBmkoi0fYk&list=PLNK0HhYMn1wmx-16iJz4XPgg7H0-YWHTt&index=1

 

To promote their agenda, the climate alarmist planners needed a future catastrophe to get people’s attention.

They concocted a scheme where carbon dioxide would raise the global temperature, thus causing the world’s ice to melt.

The prospect of rising oceans that would inundate coastal cities offered the needed scary scenario.

There is just one problem with their scheme – It is not true!

Global warming is the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world!  

Many environmentalists have changed the term “global warming” to “global climate change” because they have not been able to decide whether the earth is getting warmer or cooler. 

The new invented term of “global climate change” is a “safe bet” for them because it covers either situation.

No authentic scientific data proves that there is a correlation between man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) and global warming, and there is also no proof that the current warming trend is caused by the rise of man-made CO2

How could carbon dioxide, the lifeblood of plants, be viewed as a poison?

Therefore, no legitimate scientific data indicates that man is the cause of “climate change” nor that man’s behavior has the power to raise or lower global climactic temperatures.

This report will provide a reasoned, logical and factual approach to global warming. 

Scientific facts are extremely important when we are making decisions that impact our economy and country; this report will provide the needed facts and dispel the “junk science” and climate change myths.

 

  1. HANDY LIST OF FACTS ON GLOBAL WARMING
  2. Temperatures are increasing somewhat as we recover from the “Little Ice Age” that occurred in the early 1800s.  It may become warmer without any human assistance. 
  3. Global Average Temperature has increased about 1.4 ºF since the early 20th Century.  This is 0.14 ºF per decade.
  4. The Contiguous United States Temperature has increased 0.15 ºF per decade, from 1895 – 2016.
  5. The greenhouse effect is real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet.  Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (and look much like Mars).
  6. Greenhouse gases make up about 1 % – 2 % of the Earth’s atmosphere.  Water vapor contributes 95 % of the greenhouse effect. 
  7. Humans are responsible for 0.28 % (about one-quarter of 1 percent) of the greenhouse effect. 
  8. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not an air pollutant and it is not a poison!  About 40 % of CO2 is reabsorbed by plants and trees. 
  9. There is no scientific consensus on the human role in climate change.
  10. Future warming due to human greenhouse gases will likely be much less than IPCC forecasts.
  11. Carbon dioxide has not caused weather to become more extreme, polar ice and sea ice to melt, or sea level rise to accelerate. These were all false alarms.
  12. In recent decades, global sea level has risen just 7 inches per century.
  13. There is no correlation between man-made CO2 and hurricanes, tornadoes, precipitation, drought, forest fires, or human disease.
  14. “Junk science” is rampant among the global warmers; raw subjectivity has replaced the scientific method.
  15. The global warming researchers have substantial motivation to be dishonest or seriously biased.  They obtain more grants when they take a pro-global warming stance (“follow the money”). 
  16. The federal government spent $22.5 billion on global warming in 2013 and doled out $200 billion over the past 20 years on this folly.
  17. The science is not settled on global warming (climate change).  The claim of 97 percent consensus is based on a flawed essay and is a blatant lie.
  18. Alarmists see what they believe, while skeptics believe what they see.
  19. Alarmists think every change in the weather is evidence of a human impact on climate, and a human impact is necessarily bad.
  20. They believe only government can solve big problems, and man-made climate change would be the biggest problem ever discovered.
  21. The global warming alarm was initiated at the United Nations in the 1980s to foster income redistribution.  The UN views global warming as a great way to transfer wealth from the richer nations to third-world countries.

 

  1. AUTHOR’S EXPERIENCE IN AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

I served as a Sanitary Engineer in the National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA) from 1968 to 1970.  Our group developed Air Quality Criteria Documents for various air pollutants (sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide, particulate matter, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, oxidants, and nitrogen oxides).  We also formulated air quality control standards and approved regional air quality standards.  Shortly after I left the organization, NAPCA was integrated into the newly created Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Most people would agree that today’s air quality is much better than it was 45 years ago.  I am proud that I played a small part in cleaning up our nation’s air.  Many civil engineers spend their careers designing and building systems that improve the quality of our air and water.  I know that clean air is important; however, I strongly believe that our approach should be based on sound science, not on political ideology and “junk science.”

 

  1. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

The greenhouse effect is real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet.  It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they trap heat in the lower atmosphere).  The Earth’s greenhouse effect is good because it keeps the Earth warm and makes our planet habitable.  Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18 ºC) instead of its present 57 ºF (14 ºC).  If the Earth did not have the greenhouse effect, it would probably look a lot like Mars! 

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) make up about 1 % – 2 % of the Earth’s atmosphere.  Approximately 95 % of the greenhouse gases are water vapor; 3.62 % are carbon dioxide (CO2); and 1.38 % are other gases.  Stated differently, CO2 makes up about 0.04 % of the Earth’s atmosphere.

What are the sources of CO2?  Carbon dioxide is a by-product of the combustion of organic matter.  Nature contributes 96.6 % of the annual CO2 emissions, and humans produce 3.4 % of the emissions.  Several sources contribute to the greenhouse effect.  Water vapor provides 95 %; ocean biologic activity, volcanoes, decaying plants, animal activity, etc. contribute 4.72 %; and humans contribute 0.28 % of the greenhouse effect.  In other words, humans are responsible for about one-quarter of 1 percent of the greenhouse effect.

Consider these facts:

          Termites alone emit far more CO2 than all the factories and automobiles in the world.  Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined.

            https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/the-agenda-behind-global-warming-alarmism

[Perhaps we should outlaw termites and wetlands.]

 

  1. GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TRENDS

Craig Loehle published a graph showing 2,000 years of global temperatures.  It shows a Medieval Warm Period occurring around 600 – 1000 A.D. and the Little Ice Age from 1400 – 1700 A.D.  Temperatures are increasing somewhat as we recover from the “Little Ice Age” that occurred in the early 1800s.  It may become warmer without any human assistance.  More importantly, the graph shows that natural climate varies dramatically over time.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/

The (U.S.) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) operates the National Climatic Data Center.  According to a recent report (August 2017) “Global Climate Change Indicators”:

          Global average temperature is one of the most-cited indicators of global climate change, and shows an increase of approximately 1.4°F since the early 20th Century. 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/indicators.php

[This is 1.4 °F per century or 0.14 º F per decade.  On the Centigrade scale, it is 0.78 ºC per century, or 0.078 ºC per decade.]

 

  1. DOES CARBON DIOXIDE CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING?

The basic premise behind global warming is that increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing the Earth’s atmosphere to become warmer.  The key for the global warming alarmists is to tie rising atmospheric temperatures to higher levels of CO2, but not just any CO2; it must be CO­2 produced by human activities (anthropogenic). 

We exhale CO2 and much of it is taken up by plants.  Actually, about 40 % of CO2 is reabsorbed by plants and trees.  The statistics on carbon dioxide emissions usually disregard the percentage that is reabsorbed by plants.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2038

A 7.31.17 paper reveals that CO2 has virtually no effect on atmospheric temperature, “New Paper: CO2 Has Negligible Influence On Earth’s Temperature.”  The researchers found:

           If there is a warming effect by CO2 on the atmosphere, it is too small to measure and can be considered as being negligible. In fact, it is fair to say there is virtually a complete disconnect between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperature.

http://climatechangedispatch.com/new-paper-co2-has-negligible-influence-on-earths-temperature/

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international network of some 50 independent scientists from 15 countries.   Many of them are distinguished scientists, with no financial stake in the climate change debate.

A new book from NIPCC was published in 2015, “Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming.”  The second edition, released in 2016, was distributed to 350,000 teachers, college professors, elected officials, and influential members of the media in 2017.  [Free copies may be downloaded from the Heartland Institute website.]

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

http://f1a.fa0.myftpupload.com/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming/

Here is what the scientists determined:

  1. There is no scientific consensus on the human role in climate change.
  2. Future warming due to human greenhouse gases will likely be much less than IPCC forecasts.
  3. Carbon dioxide has not caused weather to become more extreme, polar ice and sea ice to melt, or sea level rise to accelerate. These were all false alarms.
  4. The likely benefits of man-made global warming exceed the likely costs.

            https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/the-global-warming-crisis-is-over

This landmark publication continues:    

          Earth has not warmed significantly for the past 18 years despite an 8 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, which represents 34 percent of all extra CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution. #

          No close correlation exists between temperature variation over the past 150 years and human-related CO2 emissions.

            https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/Why%20Scientists%20Disagree%20Second%20Edition%20with%20covers.pdf

The global warming alarmists use climate models that are deeply flawed to predict the atmospheric temperature.  These models produce drastically different results and are highly inconsistent.  The warming proponents’ climate models have been abysmal failures!

The following analysis reveals that every major climate model overestimated the effects of manmade global warming:

          Analysis by Roy Spencer, Ph.D., and John Christy, Ph.D., shows that 44 of the world’s leading climate models projected an average temperature rise of about 0.5ºC during the last 16 years when measured temperatures were flat. The analysis was recently updated to include 73 of the leading climate models. Not a single model made an accurate forecast.

          https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/why-the-climate-models-are-wrong

 

  1. HURRICANES AND GLOBAL WARMING

Climate alarmists are using the term “global climate change” instead of “global warming.”  Under that label, they can throw tornadoes, hurricanes, forest fires, and droughts into the mix under the broader “climate change” label. 

Even though some environmentalists try to say that global warming causes an increase in hurricane activity, scientific evidence does not support this theory.  There is no correlation between man-made CO2 and hurricanes, tornadoes, precipitation, drought, forest fires, or human disease.

 http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/

On August 25, 2017, Hurricane Harvey slammed Rockport, Texas on the Texas Gulf Coast as a Category 4 hurricane.  As it stalled out over the Houston area, it dropped over 50 inches of rain and caused catastrophic flooding over a wide area.  Right on cue, the alarmists were quick to point to “climate change” or global warming as the culprit.

Dr. Roy Spencer examined all of the major hurricanes in Texas since 1870 and found that the hurricanes were not related to global warming or the Gulf of Mexico sea surface temperatures.  Hurricanes require a unique set of circumstances to occur.  (Dr. Spencer should know; he did his Ph.D. dissertation on tropical cyclones and has published extensively on the subject.)  Dr. Spencer also refuted the alarmists’ theory that suggested global warming caused Hurricane Harvey to stall over southeast Texas.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/TX-major-hurricanes-vs-Gulf-SSTs.jpg

Are hurricanes becoming more common due to global warming?  Roger Pielke, Jr. pointed out that the U.S. has had only four Category 4 (or stronger) hurricane strikes since 1970.  In about the same number of years preceding 1970, there were 14 hurricane strikes.  Therefore, you cannot say we are experiencing more intense hurricanes in recent decades.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Dr. Spencer determined:

          Going back even earlier, a Category 4 hurricane struck Galveston in 1900, killing between 6,000 and 12,000 people. That was the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history.

Do not forget, we just went through an unprecedented length of time (almost 12 years) without a major hurricane (Category 3 or stronger) hitting the U.S.

On September 9, 2017, Hurricane Irma hit Cudjoe Key, Florida as a Category 4 storm.  As the huge hurricane swallowed the entire state of Florida, serious devastation and flooding occurred. 

As expected, global warming alarmists were quick to connect Hurricane Irma with climate change.  There is just one problem with that analysis; Irma developed into a major hurricane over relatively cool waters in the Atlantic Ocean near Africa.  Water surface temperatures there were 26.5 ºC, about two degrees below what is considered necessary to build a major hurricane.

NOAA published a report on 8.30.17, “Global Warming and Hurricanes.”  The report stated:

          It is premature to conclude that human activities – and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming – have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.

          In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.

            https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

 

  1. IS GLOBAL WARMING CAUSING SEA LEVELS TO RISE?

In Al Gore’s 2006 “Inconvenient Truth” movie, he predicted that melting ice caps would cause oceans to rise “up to 20 feet in the near future.”  By comparison, oceans have risen nearly 400 feet since the last ice age ended, reflecting the tremendous amount of water trapped in mile-thick glaciers over much of North America, Europe and Asia.

According to a 12.13.16 article by Paul Driessen:

           In recent decades, though, global sea level rise has averaged just 7 inches per century – which may explain why Mr. Gore bought an $8.5-million mansion on the California coast in 2010.

            https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/sea-level-rise–or-land-subsidence

“Rising seas due to manmade climate change” remains a contentious issue, with profound land use, economic, insurance and policy implications.  One particularly susceptible area to sea level rise is the Chesapeake Bay Region around Norfolk, Virginia.  An 8.22.17 publication by Dr. Roger Bezdek concludes:

          Our findings indicate that the water intrusion problems in the region are due not to “sea level rise”, but primarily to land subsidence due to groundwater depletion and, to a lesser extent, subsidence from glacial isostatic adjustment.

            http://file.scirp.org/pdf/GEP_2017082114184856.pdf

Two well-studied cases of land subsidence are the Houston-Galveston, Texas area and the Santa Clara Valley, California area.  Land sank by as much as 10 feet over 50 years because of intensive groundwater extraction (pumping).

Confusion arises because discussions often involve “relative sea level rise” – which combines glacial isostatic and groundwater subsidence, along with actual sea level rise.  However, the “relative sea level rise” term lends itself to climate alarmism by leaving the false impression that the entire problem is due to melting icecaps and rising seas.  The next time you see a report on rising oceans, determine if the author is really reporting on “relative sea level rise” due to land subsidence.

 

  1. “JUNK SCIENCE”

When it comes to global warming, raw subjectivity has replaced the scientific method.  Many scientists and researchers began with preconceived theories and then proceeded to find ways to support them.  Ideology is controlling the conclusions instead of true science. 

  1. Scientific Dishonesty and Money

Scientific research at the upper echelons occurs within a fairly small world.  Leading researchers attend the same conferences, belong to the same societies, and review one another’s work.  It is a tight fraternity, a rather exclusive club. 

The global warming researchers have substantial motivation to be dishonest or seriously biased.  They gain recognition and notoriety through their published articles.  They obtain continued grant funding, larger grants, more graduate students and university advancement when they take a pro-global warming stance (“follow the money”). 

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2100

The federal government spends huge sums of money on global warming:

          In Fiscal Year 2013, the U.S. federal government spent $22.5 billion on “global warming.” It spent $200 billion over the past 20 years. By one estimate, the world is spending $1 billion a DAY on projects that wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for global warming alarmism.

          https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/opening-remarks-by-heartland-institute-president-joseph-bast-at-the-ninth-international-conference-on-climate-change

With the federal government doling out $200 billion over 20 years, “follow the money” takes on real meaning!  All of this spending has created a huge global warming industry that can be very lucrative for the researchers, universities, and companies involved.  Scientists, economists and journalists have had their careers ruined by daring to speak out against the global warming hysteria.

  1. Climate Alarmists vs. Climate Skeptics

Joseph Bast, President of the Heartland Institute, captured the essence of the global warming debate with these words:

          Alarmists see what they believe, while skeptics believe what they see.

          Alarmists think every change in the weather is evidence of a human impact on climate, and a human impact is necessarily bad.

          They believe only government can solve big problems, and man-made climate change would be the biggest problem ever discovered.

Skeptics believe what they see. They look at the data and see no warming for 17 years, no increase in storms, no increase in the rate of sea level rise, no new extinctions attributable to climate change, in short, no climate crisis. 

            https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/opening-remarks-by-heartland-institute-president-joseph-bast-at-the-ninth-international-conference-on-climate-change

  1. Scientific Consensus

The global warming contingent often states that: “the science is settled; there is strong consensus on global warming.”    

This claim of scientific consensus is based on a flawed essay by Naomi Oreskes of the University of California-San Diego, which appeared in the journal Science in December 2004.  As a socialist historian, she supposedly surveyed the literature and could not find a single paper questioning the global warming hypothesis.  Several researchers found numerous flaws in her work, but the Science journal refused to publish their rebuttals.  The so-called 97 percent consensus figure is based on a lie! 

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1905

Even if a majority of scientists had voted for human-caused global warming, that is not how science works.  Unlike in politics, the majority does not rule in science!  Rather, every advance in science has come from a minority of people who found that observed facts contradicted the prevailing hypothesis.  Sometimes it took only one scientist, mathematician or engineer (such as Galileo, Einstein or Edison).

If the climate alarmists want to play the numbers game on consensus, how will they handle over 31,000 scientists who are denying global warming?  In the Global Warming Petition Project, 31,478 American scientists, including 9,021 with Ph.Ds. signed the very strong statement on the causes and consequences of global warming.  By contrast, fewer than 100 scientists (and non-scientists) were listed in the IPCC publication.

http://www.petitionproject.org./index.php

The signers of the Global Warming Petition Project even found some positive aspects to global warming:

          Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. 

https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/Books/Why%20Scientists%20Disagree%20Second%20Edition%20with%20covers.pdf

  1. Scientific Bias and Search Engine Bias

On July 10, 2016, Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast gave a presentation at the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness meeting in Omaha, Nebraska.  This is the link to a video of his talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZq6zc0G018&feature=youtu.be

Mr. Bast pointed out that climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased.  Origins of this bias include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias.  This is “academic herding.”  Liberals invariably support the global warming myth, and conservatives do not.  Climate change is a political agenda!

Joseph Bast told the audience that they should not trust Google or Wikipedia.  The left has taken over Google, Wikipedia, Twitter, and Facebook.  Those websites have extreme bias against conservatives, are full of lies and cannot be trusted. 

He gave this example.  The Heartland Institute has published over 10 million words on global warming.  When you Google “global warming,” the Heartland Institute does not show up until page 3 or 4.  This illustrates how reports are being suppressed on global warming skeptics.  Because young people rely so heavily on the Internet (Google and Wikipedia), they are immune to the truth about global warming.  Those sites lie to them and hide the real research on the subject.

Instead of using Google or Wikipedia, visit these websites instead:

https://www.heartland.org/index.html

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

http://www.co2science.org/

http://www.sepp.org/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

 

  1. WHY IS THE LEFT PUSHING GLOBAL WARMING?

With no scientific basis for global warming, why is it being promoted by various groups?  These are a few reasons:

  1. Power

The global warming alarm was initiated at the United Nations in the 1980s.  The original goal was to use it to achieve global governance and fund it through a global tax on carbon dioxide (“carbon tax”). 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created by the United Nations in 1988.  Its charter states that the organization’s purpose is to look for human-induced climate change. Therein lies the problem; the IPCC has a built-in bias in favor of climate change or global warming.  Please note that the IPCC is an “intergovernmental” entity, not a scientific organization.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2682

Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN Earth Summit, said global warming would play an important role in “reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.” [In other words, Maurice Strong viewed global warming as a great way to expand the United Nations’ power base.]  

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/

  1. Money

The biggest promoters of the global warming scare are those profiting the most.  At the 2007 global conference, Maurice Strong disclosed that he was Chairman and Vice Chairman of two such companies.  (One company is the Chicago Climate Exchange.) 

[In an obvious conflict of interest, Mr. Strong went from being an avid proponent of global warming to personally reaping financial rewards from the scam.]

Al Gore ran various green energy investment companies and profited from the scam.  Gore had less than $2 million when he left the vice presidency in 2001.  Today, he is worth between $200 and $300 million!  Al Gore’s best financial move was when he joined Apple’s Board of Directors in 2003.  As part of the deal, he received tens of millions of Apple shares.  Gore also received Google shares when he became a senior advisor at Google in 2001.

http://www.inquisitr.com/4407486/al-gore-net-worth-2017-global-warming-movie-an-inconvenient-sequel-money-house-climate-change/

Companies like General Electric are benefiting from the “green” scene.  At the same time, GE pays virtually no corporate income tax!  Of course, the Solyndras and other “crony capitalist” companies were heavily feeding at the federal green energy trough.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/business/economy/corporate-tax-report.html

  1. Income Redistribution

The UN views global warming as a great way to transfer wealth from the richer nations (like the U.S. and European countries) to the third-world countries (like those in Africa).  Global warming offers a powerful means to extract huge sums of money from the United States and transfer it to Africa. 

Obama has demonstrated through his speeches and actions that he believes intensely in class warfare and income redistribution.  This drives almost everything that he does.  He strongly urged the United States to sign the UN protocols, thereby requiring the U.S. to send billions of dollars overseas.  Fortunately, good judgement prevailed and the U.S. did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

  1. Ideology

The global warming scam is being used to promote social justice.  According to their reasoning, the developed countries that emit carbon dioxide (CO2) should pay money to the “developing” countries. 

The former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart stated: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

 

CONCLUSION

The Earth’s greenhouse effect is good because it keeps the Earth warm and makes our planet habitable.  Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (and look much like Mars).

If there is a warming effect by CO2 on the atmosphere, it is too small to measure and can be considered as negligible.  Over long periods of time, there is no close relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. 

Global average temperature has increased approximately 1.4°F since the early 20th Century.  The rate of warming in the troposphere measured by satellites is 0.25 º F per decade.

Hurricanes were not related to global warming or the Gulf of Mexico sea surface temperatures. 

Sea levels are not rising due to global warming!  In recent decades, global sea level rise has averaged just 7 inches per century.

Global warming (“climate change”) is the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world!  

The science on global warming is not settled!  The so-called 97 percent consensus figure is based on a lie! 

The global warming alarm was initiated at the United Nations in the 1980s.  The United Nations views global warming as a great way to transfer wealth from the richer nations to the third-world countries.

=======================================

Bio for Henry W. Burke

 

Henry Burke is a Civil Engineer with a B.S.C.E. and M.S.C.E.  He has been a Registered Professional Engineer (P.E.) for 37 years and has worked as a Civil Engineer in construction for over 45 years. 

Henry Burke has experience in the air pollution control field through employment with the National Air Pollution Control Administration.

Mr. Burke had a successful 27-year career with a large construction company. 

Henry Burke has served as a full-time volunteer to oversee various construction projects. He has written numerous articles on education, engineering, construction, politics, taxes, and the economy.

Henry W. Burke

E-mail:  hwburke@cox.net

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Advertisements
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponPrint this pageEmail this to someone

Leave a Reply

UA-24036587-1
%d bloggers like this: