Dr. Neil Frank: Hillary Clinton Is No Hurricane Expert—But I Am

Guest essay by Dr. Neil Frank, former Director, National Hurrricane Center 

As former Director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–1987), I was appalled when, in a campaign rally at Miami-Dade College October 11, Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said, “Hurricane Matthew was likely more destructive because of climate change.”

That is false.

We were extremely fortunate that Matthew—category 5 through much of the Caribbean—weakened to category 2 before landfall in South Carolina. It could have been much worse.

In 1893 a much stronger hurricane followed nearly the same track. When its eye reached the Georgia and South Carolina coasts, a 15–20 ft. storm surge inundated the coastal islands. Though population was a small fraction of today’s, between 2,000 and 3,000 died, making that the second deadliest hurricane in U.S. history. The same year another major hurricane killed 2,000 in Louisiana.

All together five hurricanes hit the U.S. in 1893, something that’s happened only 4 times in over 150 years (1886, 1893, 1916, 1933)—all long before CO2 levels rose enough to theoretically cause rapid global warming.

Clinton wants us to believe CO2, emitted when we burn fossil fuels for electricity and transportation vital to life, health, and prosperity, causes global warming that causes more and stronger hurricanes. She’s wrong.

There has been a worldwide 30-year lull in hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones despite the simultaneous warming—manmade or natural. It has been 11 years since a major hurricane hit the U.S. Before that we expected, on average, 1 every 2 years. In the 7 years 1944–1950, well before the rapid rise of CO2, 6 hit Florida alone.

Clinton is ignorant about more than hurricanes. Based on computer climate models that fail test after test, predicting two to three times the observed warming, she claimed that because of rising sea level driven by manmade warming, “one in eight homes in Florida could be underwater by the end of the century.”

Empirical observation says otherwise. Since 1992 sea level in Miami has risen only a little over 1 inch—a rate of 4.2 inches per century, no faster than for millennia. Mrs. Clinton is wrong. It’s not time to move to the mountains.

Yes, Earth’s atmosphere is warming. It has been, off and on, for 150 years. What causes it? CO2, natural cycles, or some combination? Sun and ocean current cycles correlate better with global temperature than CO2.

If CO2 doesn’t control Earth’s temperature, why has our government spent some $150 billion on “green energy” alone—not to mention billions on research to bolster belief in man-made warming—over the last 15 years?

What do we have to show for it? We lost $500 million when solar panel maker Solyndra went bankrupt. In 2009 we subsidized 11 electric car companies for $2.5 billion. Six are bankrupt and 5 floundering. In 2015 Sun Edison, America’s largest “green energy” company, went bankrupt, costing us $3 billion. Abergeo, the largest international solar energy company, threatens bankruptcy costing us $2.5 billion. We’ve committed $3.5 billion toward a $100 billion climate fund for developing nations.

Projected future costs are staggering. Clinton wants to build and install 500 million new solar panels in the next four years. The Institute for Energy Research estimates this will cost $205 billion—plus higher electric rates for consumers. She wants all residential energy to be “green” by 2025.

A peer-reviewed study concludes that full implementation of the Paris climate agreement, which Clinton supports, would cost $1–$2 trillion per year ($70–$144 trillion from 2030–2100). The payoff? An inconsequential 0.3˚F reduction in global average temperature.

If climate alarmists want to protect life, why aren’t they as concerned about the 1.5 billion people without electricity and the 2–3 billion without pure water? Millions die each year from these two factors. At a fraction of the cost of fighting global warming, electricity from abundant, affordable, reliable fossil fuels, not diffuse, expensive, intermittent wind and solar, could prevent those deaths.

Neil L. Frank, Ph.D. (Meteorology), the longest-serving Director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–1987) and retired Chief Meteorologist of KHOU-TV, Houston (1987–2008), is a Fellow of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

Originally published on The Daily Caller, republished with permission

121 thoughts on “Dr. Neil Frank: Hillary Clinton Is No Hurricane Expert—But I Am

  1. This is incontrovertibly all true, and Clinton and a host of other politicians, policy makers, science representatives and media staff have either been fooled through ignorance of how science works and what it shows or they have been deliberately deceptive. The liklely motivation behind the second possibility is what I find most scary. What is the real agenda?

    • The real agenda is clear – cronyism under a cloak of do-good progressive policy. You need a good crisis to move a lot of money.

    • “[C]orporate power, upper class power, uneven distribution of wealth and prejudice cause social problems… [T]he problem is not one of poverty, but of enormous wealth. The problem is not one of gaps or cracks in an otherwise fine system but of a system which perpetuates prejudicial views concerning race, sex, age, and disability. The problem is not one of incompetence but of barriers to education, jobs, and power. Accordingly, as long as there is a deep gulf between social classes, both in terms of wealth, power, and outlook, traditional social programs will act merely as palliatives to oppression and not as a way of ending large scale human misery. This perspective is, above all, eclectic. It embraces Marx’s criticism of social class inequality but is not only a social class analysis. It is anti-racist, but it is not only a theory of race equality. It favors democratic distribution of power but is also an economic theory. It can be called a social and economic democracy perspective.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy
      Lots to take in here.

    • {Note: This comment is NOT off topic (it may appear to be to some, thus, I write this clarification) — Clinton is using AGW as a ploy to win an election in the U.S.A. and why she would do that is on topic}
      Mr. Pattullo: The

      real agenda

      is Enviroprofiteering and Envirostalinism, i.e.:
      1. MONEY (wind/solar/disaster insurance industries NEED this lie to get tax subsidies/rate surcharges/policies sold).
      2. CONTROL. If you control human CO2, you can control the entire economy. (just as with Government Medicine: you can control everything a person does) You can ennervate the military. And hand your own country over to the communists (or “socialists” or “Democrats” or whatever they prefer to be called).
      And money controls the entire (even Fox, now, sadly, except for Hannity) U.S. news media.
      3. Human weakness. People who vote Democrat want to be taken care of. They prefer being controlled to liberty.

      Liberty means responsibility. That is why most {people} dread it.

      I do not completely agree with Shaw’s second clause. Most people, when properly educated and told how liberty can work for them, that is, (to borrow from Winston Churchill) that while capitalism results in unequal blessings, socialism results in (for all but those who are “more equal than others” — G. Orwell, Animal Farm) equal misery.
      Cubans understand.
      Chinese understand.
      Haitians understand.
      And, if the Republicans would just get off their duff and put their time and money into educating inner city and new immigrant groups, all the “minorities” would also understand.
      Thanks to Donald Trump — they may get a shot at understanding.
      NO THANKS to the Republican/RINO machine which, stupidly, election after election, puts forth such duds as McCain and Romney. DUDS (as far as electability) who are abysmal failures at reaching out to the above population sub-groups. I have really wondered if they are actually Democrat operatives. They are THAT bad at doing what it takes to win. Incompetent or wicked? Take your choice.
      They denigrate their OWN candidates! That incompetent (why does anyone interview the man?) creep, Karl Rove, a few years ago actively promoted the Democrat in a New Hampshire Congressional race (the Republican was a woman whose name I can’t recall). In this election, stupidly (or not?….) dopes like Rubio are throwing rocks at Trump. What fools! (or not….)
      To bring this back to the thread topic: all the above is WHY Clinton is: 1) using the AGW sc@m; and 2) why such a ploy is a rational one for Democrats to use.

      Take heart, nevertheless! Brexit passed!

      A new dawn is on the way. The Sun of Liberty is about to rise, once again, in the U.S.A.!

      • BFL! Loved them both. That man’s wit is a gift to us all! And, usually, with a worthwhile point. And this one is on point, here:
        In one of those Adams pieces you cite above, he talks about the Hill-bullies. With a product with low quality of judgment, perceived as revolting even by her own fans (“you don’t have to like her”), expensive as heck with the tax increases/Obamacare perpetuation, and no distinguishing attributes to gain market share, bullying is all they’ve got. All bullies are weak. Just — say — no! 🙂 (and yes to TRUMP!)

      • Good job of placing a thin veil of on-topic relevance on a purely political diatribe, based as it is on an out-moded ‘capitalism versus socialism’ diversion that has little to do with our political reality. Your paraphrase of Churchill is symbolic of your dogmatic belief in the phony charade. So much tripe to rebut, but I’ll just leave you with this link. It isn’t meant to be a singular focus on how you seem to buy into the simplistic veneration of Churchill, but how wrong your simplistic view of politics clearly is.

      • The “mises.org” is just another philosophical opinion piece cobbled together by typical political hack who (apparently like you) considers himself the one true genius. Yes politics is complicated, especially considering all the insider bargaining and under table payoffs that apparently are normally required to accomplish even the least effort. But that is just why is so necessary to reduce those complications to an understandable level of simplicity and then follow through (instead of the usual say whatever to be chosen and then do whatever to make the insiders happy/rich). The only candidate that even appears responsible enough to actually follow through AND be in the populist corner is Trump.

      • Janice,
        I often appreciate your lively and informed comments here, but I think, perhaps, you may be misstating the case against “Republicans” somewhat. I respectfully offer this editorial for your consideration: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441442/republican-congress-conservative-majority
        Note, I do NOT consider myself in any way, shape, or form a Republican. I vote Republican because I feel that they most closely represent the views/beliefs I hold. Frankly though, as a party, I could not POSSIBLY care less about their fate. They exist to serve the people. If they stop being useful, something else will (hopefully) take their place.
        Having said that, though, I think it’s a disservice to so broadly smear them without due consideration of what they’ve accomplished. Demonizing your political opponents is often used to mask the fact that you have a weak argument, and it’s a tactic that I’ve seen repeatedly, and horribly, used and abused on the left. I find that the demonization of Republicans is too close to this, too similar in nature, for my personal tastes. Just my opinion and thoughts.
        Respectfully yours,
        Brian Lindauer
        aka rip

    • There is a reason that they chose CO2 as their lever instead of say H2O a much more pervasive and influencing greenhouse gas. Controlling CO2 allows them through one target to regulate the power industry and thus exert control on people to make them live the way they believe is good. After all if they didn’t dictate to us how we must live we might be gas guzzling energy sucking vampires.
      Or we could be like our host and use Solar panels and a nice small electric car. But people would be free to choose which. Regulating H2O wouldn’t allow them the same degree of control.

      • Oh and also see water empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_empire . The idea being that you control the society through control of a primary resource. CO2 allows them to regulate most sources of power and if it isn’t something they can regulate via that they make it look bad in other ways or just don’t talk about it. See Nuclear Power and see Hydraulic Power … ie large scale dams used to generate power through changing kinetic energy into electricity.

      • I’m really uncertain as to why our current Governor of Lunifornia hasn’t sought legislation to require that ALL new subdivision housing tracts within the state shall require:
        Rooftop Solar Panels with comperable Battery Back-up systems at every unit.
        Electric Vehicle charging stations in every garage powered by additional rooftop solar and battery back-up
        At least 1 electric vehicle included in every garage.
        Granted it would add approx $80,000 to the cost of the house
        It would surely force an expansion of the infrastructure needed to manage a larger electric fleet.
        I’m ever thankful that it hasn’t happened but it sure seems like their next step

  2. I would turn it around on Hillary. If climate change is responsible for Matthew, perhaps we need more since it was one of the most impotent Cat4/5 hurricanes in terms of lives lost. A few hundred died due to the hurricane, versus the unnamed storm of 1893 where 10 times that many did.

    • And most of those were in Haiti which was systematically stripped of all of it’s natural surface level wind breaks

    • philjourdan,

      I would turn it around on Hillary.

      With all respect, no you wouldn’t. You’re trying to use a reasonable, rational argument to rebut a completely irrational, politically and ideologically motivated campaign of fear of a phantom Armageddon to scare the prols. Remember Rahm Emanual’s quote, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” To which I would add, even if you have to create the crisis.

  3. ‘The inconsequential 0.3 F drop in global average temperature’ is still only a guess, based upon many questionable assumptions.

    • It also appears to be “the optimistic scenario“. The pessimistic is less than a third of that.

  4. This guy will likely get sacked, you don’t go against the tide, or the MSM, or Obama and the Clintons.

  5. The AGW alarmism behaves exactly like a religion. Not only does it determine the wrong cause, it vilifies the wrong culprit and creates rules that will never allow any solution to be found. Let’s double down on the stupidity and toss another virgin into the volcano. /sarc

    • It has sadly began to acquire the accouterments of a religion. We shall see how it goes. One of the serious problems it is having is that it is well wrong and getting more wrong as time passes.

  6. Typo needs fixing: “—all long before CO2 levels rose enough to theoretically cause rapid global warming.lieve CO2, emitted when we burn fossil fuels for …”

  7. Apparently saying things that can be shown empirically shown to be untrue is no impediment to political success. Almost makes one wish that journalists didn’t go extinct years ago.

    • “Almost makes one wish that journalists didn’t go extinct years ago.”
      Dave- I watched the campus newspaper at the college where I had my career degenerate slowly over the decades, getting more like a large high-school newspaper than a university. Maybe that was because my perspective was changing, also. I just see journalism as a place to spout opinion by spinning stories from your perspective, these days.

  8. “If climate alarmists want to protect life….”
    Kind of answers itself, they don’t. They believe 7 billion is tttooooo many. That if many of them should die off or stop breeding is not a problem for their agenda.

  9. Been a long time fan of Dr. Neil for many years here in Houston. He’s straight forward, to the point and takes the subject and puts it in terms that anyone regardless of education can understand. I’ve always wanted to know his exact stance on the subject because he always used to stay away from the discussion on KHOU-11. Now that he’s off the air I guess he’s able to speak his mind a little more freely.

  10. Thedre is a great deal of money and political investment in the notion of global warming, so it will be very resistant to change unless it becomes politically poisonous. Crighton drew parallels with eugenics, which after Hitler, almost no one admitted to ever having believed in.

  11. The stratospheric PV is predicted to significantly weaken into early November. All weather models now predict an unprecedented and significant early split of the stratospheric PV. I expect the circulation anomalies associated with the PV split to descend into the mid and lower troposphere later in November. When this occurs expect the cold and snow that has been mostly confined to Siberia so far, to expand into the mid-latitudes resulting in an early start to winter weather for widespread portions of northern Eurasia, including Europe and East Asia, and possibly the eastern United States (US).

  12. A true scientist speaks. An expert in his field. One that the “97%” should pay attention to. Will they? Not if they’ve become political scientist.
    I hope this “slap up the side of the head’ wakes some them up.
    For the rest of who are laymen, didn’t Al Gore somehow try to blame Kartrina on GW Bush? Did Hillary just blame Matthew on Obama?

  13. Coastlines are dynamic. They are shaped by wind and wave. I live directly on the Atlantic on the Barrier island in Fort Lauderdale (seaside the intercoastal, seaside famous Florida road A1A) and watch this dynamic process in real time off my ocean facing balcony. Swim out 50 yards and the sand is still only 4-5 feet down at low tide. Our beach grows and shrinks by yards in weeks depending on sea conditions. Today we are losing beach, with 6 foot waves breaking spectacularly over the coral reefs about 500 meters off shore and only 5 meters deep, then pounding the beach at an angle.
    OTH, the long record PSMSL tide gauges with diff GPS land correction within 10 Km show ~2.2mm/year since 1900 and no acceleration. Over 30 years that is 66 mm, or 6.6cm or about 3 inches. Our local tides are about 3-4 feet depending on season and moon. The tidal beach slope is at most about 25 degrees. So that 3 inches SLR reduced the exposed beach at most by about 6.5 inches. Basic trigonometry says SLR is absolutely de minimus compared to ordinary beach dynamics. And so, for whatever locally dynamic reasons shorelines grew globally the last 30 years. Its called natural variation.

    • Ristvan, coastlines certainly are dynamic beasts, but I’m only highlighting SAT imagery that shows coastlines have increased over the last 30 years. Something doesn’t add up, because 30 years is a fair period if we’re supposed to be living in a time of dangerous SLR.
      Anyway that’s the BS line that stupid Hillary wants to promote, plus a minor hurricane was made worse because of human intervention .
      Who votes for these dummies?

  14. You kast paragraph makes an incorrect assumption. Alarmists do not want nor are interested in protecting life. That’s why.

  15. Well said by a top authority on hurricanes and the atmosphere.
    We can also note the 1954 hurricane season, which featured 3 major hurricanes striking the East Coast in just 3 months.
    The strongest of the 3, Hurricane Hazel, was similar to Matthews path and strength for a time but went farther west, slamming into the coast of North Carolina with 140 mph winds, as a cat. 4, then continuing inland.
    Hazel accelerated northward and was absorbed into an upper level mid latitude trough in Southeast Canada but still had some hurricane force winds and torrential rains when it stalled over Toronto.
    1954 was a year in the midst of modest global cooling.
    Superstorm Sandy, in 2012, touted as unprecedented, actually did something similar to Hazel during its final days, as it also phased with an upper level trough(from a strong -NAO) and stalled for a longer period in the Northeast.
    Interestingly, what was most unprecedented with regards to Sandy, was the attention this storm got for being worsened by global warming/climate change.
    Sandy was assumed by many to be greatly effected by human caused climate change. Speculated and exaggerated evidence of this was sensationalized into a narrative that defined Sandy and turned it into an unprecedented “Superstorm” caused by climate change.
    Climate/weather history shows that none of the recent events are unprecedented. Imagine another Dust Bowl drought, like the 1930’s for instance. How would this be reported in today’s age?
    The Midwest drought of 2012 was purportedly from climate change but the previous 24 years without a severe drought in this same area, a new record for the best growing conditions in climate history……….was not climate change?

  16. “We were extremely fortunate that Matthew—category 5 through much of the Caribbean…….”
    Now wait a minute here. I thought Matthew only reached CAT V for a brief period?

  17. Consider the witness well and truly impeached. Everything that comes out of “that woman’s” mouth is a lie (or worse).

  18. Two things…
    Hillary will say (lie) and do anything to get elected.
    If CO2/global warming was a real threat…..define developing country..they would be screaming their heads off about China, India, Kuwait, etc

  19. Wonder how he missed this?

    All together five hurricanes hit the U.S. in 1893, something that’s happened only 4 times in over 150 years (1886, 1893, 1916, 1933)—all long before CO2 levels rose enough to theoretically cause rapid global warming.

    In 2005, 6 hurricanes made landfall on a US Coastline. I believe that 4 were major (cat 3, or higher). http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tracks/tracks-at-2005.png
    Kind of a fanatic hurricane watcher myself. Been caught in/ or around a few, including being on Cozumel for Hurricane Gilbert, in 1988. That was a thrill.
    Also, he said, “It has been 11 years since a major hurricane hit the U.S.,” should instead say, ” . . since one made landfall.” It’s a bit difficult to say that Matthew didn’t hit the US; but it (the eye) did not make landfall as a major.
    It’s a great column, but such misspeak, gives ammunition to the crazies.

    • Nope, only three made landfall (meaning the eye of the hurricane passed over land, not “the wind bands reached land”). Katrina, Rita, Wilma. Cindy and Tammy were tropical storms, not hurricanes, at landfall, and Ophelia made no landfall, like Matthew. So Dr. Frank is correct, which shouldn’t surprise anybody.

  20. Thank you Dr. Frank, for publishing the real science on this. I hope this can somehow be more publicly known before E-day.

  21. I have posted this on other blogs but will post it here because I believe it to revealing.
    They say Matthew was a CAT IV and for some period a V with 50 foot waves. 50 footers are babies compared to waves witnessed in past times in strong Tropical Cyclones.
    Here is one such account of mega waves from WW II that was disregarded from an account by Dick O’Kane as skipper of the US submarine Tang. His Sub was caught on the surface in a powerful Typhoon east of Formosa (now Taiwan) and south of the Ryukyus islands. Paragraphs are transcribed from his book ‘Clear the Bridge’ which IMO is the greatest nonfiction account of a submarine during the war in the Pacific.  The following occurred Oct 6th and 7th of 1944.
    They had buttoned up the ship and the barometer reading taken just before the boat was sealed showed 27.8 inches. A few minutes later the sub rolled 70 degrees before a huge wave and managed to recover. He writes:
    “When submerged, looking through the scope gives the viewer the impression that his eye is just above the surface of the sea, at the position of the lens. When the boat is on the surface, it’s like looking down from a 55-foot tower. I was looking up at a single monstrous wave, so big it had normal waves on it’s crest, which were blowing out into spume as it rolled in. Reflexes made me duck momentarily just before it hit, and then green water, solid green sea, went of the top of everything, burying ‘Tang’ scope and all. I had expected a mangled tube, if indeed it was not broken off above the roots, Jones lowered away lest the next wave finish it off.”…………..
    “…….. Our present position was untenable, for we were being pushed ahead in addition to our own turns, and our total speed likely equaled the advance of storm. We could thus remain in this dangerous semicircle for days, even into the Ryukyus to the immediate north…..”
    O’Kane managed to get his boat through a 180 degree turn so as to head into the waves and wind and thus the sub was saved. He could not dive in such seas without taking a great chance of losing control of the boat so they rode it out just making steerage into the waves and the wind. When the seas and winds moderated enough to open the hatch they didn’t know if they were in the eye or if they had passed beyond the storm. They had to use their compressors to equalize the pressure in the boat before they could budge the hatch.
    Later as the officers discussed what they had been through.
    “……I recalled an experience at sea with a hurricane packing 100-knot winds and spoke conservatively when I estimated that the winds of this typhoon had half again the speed. In the height of the seas, there was no comparison. We were not just guessing, for in the Quartermaster’s Notebook were recorded various periods during which the scope had been completely buried, the longest being 14 seconds. Sketching the wave crests in their most modest form and arriving at their speed from the recorded frequency, Tang’s Jr. Officers calculated that on occasions a minimum of 40 feet of sea had rolled above the lens of our scope. I would not dispute their figure nor would Frank [Executive officer and navigator], we had seen the waves, and 95 feet from crest to trough seemed conservative.”

  22. An excellent article that all climate alarmists need to read to open their eyes to reality. Incidentally, Dr. Frank could have also mentioned that 20,000 years ago the North Sea didn’t exist. The area was comprised of low-lying expanses laced by creeks and tidal pools where hunter/fisher/gatherers lived in sparsely populated bands. Two thousand years later, the great Scandinavian ice-sheets began to melt as a result of a climate that began to warm somehow without human industrial activity, and these people had to move to higher ground on what is now continental Europe. All this took centuries, so if the world’s coastal areas are being affected by the alleged warming, we have plenty of time to built the infrastructure necessary to keep the waters in check, or simply move further inland. The Great Plains of North America are currently underpopulated as is southern Siberia.

    • “The Great Plains of North America are currently underpopulated”
      Nope. All full up out here. Not enough room to sneeze. Don’t bother coming, nothing to see. These aren’t the ‘droids you’re looking for. Uh Uh.

  23. Moderator, Can you remove the comment by RockyRoad calling Hilary a hag please? This is not the dignified debate we want to have.

    • Moderator, could you remove all posts where one poster whines about the lack of dignity in other posts.
      [whining isn’t a policy violation -mod]

      • I thought it was Hillary’s Secret Service Detail that called it Broomstick One.
        Apparently, guarding Hillary Clinton is the worst job on the Secret Service list. One new Secret Service agent on her detail, the story goes, met her in a hallway on his first day on the job, and gave her a friendly greeting, to which she replied, “Go to Hell!”
        A real sweet woman.

      • “You missed the “hag” in littleoil’s post.”
        I’ve always been fascinated by that. At what point does a woman turn into a “hag”? Men are said to become “distinguished”, at least until they get to the point the family keeps them locked in the upstairs bedroom and hires a tender to change their shorts. But women seem to go through a “hag” phase that’s unique; I can’t think of a male simile.
        Maybe it’s just public exposure of women past their “sell by” date that men are hidden from?

  24. Let me get this straight … Hillary said something FALSE . OMG say it ain’t so .
    About 60 million people will demonstrate on NOv 8 they enjoy being lied to .
    The Don isn’t squeekie clean but Hillary wins that big prize . Throw the sex poodle in and
    you have the perfect USA candidate . Tabloid fodder for years and the American political system
    remains as dysfunctional as a banana republic .
    Sad for the truly brilliant, honest, hard working people in the USA . When the White House went on sale it was over for 95% of the population that is staring in stunned amazement at their country slipping away .

  25. I lived in New Orleans long enough to know that when it comes to hurricanes, Dr. Frank is the man.
    If the gods don’t bow down to his knowledge, experience, and proven track record, then they must have him on their email list, because when he gives the word on a hurricane you can take it to the bank.

  26. My theory is the people at the top and their hedge fund backers know the ship is going down and they are accumulating wealth as fast as they can before it goes below the water line . $ 20 Trillion in debt ,exhausted Q easing , screwed pension plans and a liberal government working hard to out source the economy to Asia based on the false pretence of saving the planet from global warming .
    The poor and middle class are about to get a lot poorer . But worst of all the right to freedom of speech
    is going to be stripped away with the excuse of the government trying to protect people .

    • Amber writes: “worst of all the right to freedom of speech
      is going to be stripped away”

      Is going to be? I have to take issue with that Amber; it has been taken. That part’s over, fait accompli.
      When I began working on the internet I hadn’t thought much about free speech. It wasn’t until the mid 90’s I realized we were doing something that might fundamentally improve it, along the lines of the Gutenberg press. It took one of my co-workers, who I frankly didn’t like much, to bring it to my attention. Back then I was apolitical and didn’t care about society at all, I was in it to get mine as fast as I could and get out with my skin.
      Later I started to understand what we’d done and I felt a little bad about not paying more attention to people like Paul. What was I thinking? He was right, we’d opened the door. For awhile it was some sort of magic renaissance, a golden age of communication that lasted about 15 years.
      But it’s well and truly over now. With news aggregators like Google and Yahoo dominating the portal space and “content” originators like the Guardian and WaPo controlling the dialog, freedom of speech is mostly over. This site represents a last standout and frankly I don’t understand why it hasn’t been co-opted, but I expect it will be soon. Once reputable publications like Scientific American, Nature and National Geographic are gone. Most websites actively censor comments. Some are blatant about it like Ars Technica, others like WaPo play clever games; if they don’t like the way a public dialog is going they just take down the article, strip off the comments and re-publish.
      This is going to get much worse. The short period of intellectual freedom we experienced in the late 90’s and Naughties is over.

    • Where did/does Tamino get his SLR data for Miami from?
      According to NOAA Tides and Charts, Miami Beach shows 2.39mm/year. Infact there is NOT a single Florida reading above 3.56mm/y.

      • Where did Tamino get his data from Griff? He doesn’t quote it? As I said above, there is NOT A SINGLE NOAA tide gauge above 3.56mm/y.

      • I might add Griff, according to NOAA, the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8mm/year (not corrected for local land movement).

      • While you’re over at Tamino’s site Griff, can you get him to cite the peer-reviewed literature that states what the global temperature is supposed to be and also what the CO2 level is supposed to be?
        And for extra bonus points, cite the peer reviewed study that states what our climate should be.

      • I’d go with Tamino – Dr Frank is certainly wrong on sea level rise in Florida.

        I agree Griff:
        Grant Foster, aka; Tamino – some sort of statistician in something (no ‘About’ page on his blog)
        Dr Neil Frank – Master’s and Ph.D. degrees in meteorology – Director of the National Hurricane Center (1973–1987)
        No doubt about it Griff …. Grant Foster knows more.

      • “Grant Foster, aka; Tamino – some sort of statistician in something”
        No snark intended here; it seriously irritates me a person’s credentials can be slighted like that because they’re “some sort of statistician in something”. Honestly, who exactly do you people think are carrying your water? It’s statisticians and computer programmers. I’ve spent many years in research labs and I happen to know for a fact we’re the ones doing the work.
        Do you, for a moment, think the people writing the software to perform these analysis are less qualified than the people asking the questions? We’re the ones answering them. We have to understand the questions before we do that.
        I’m sick of this arrogant nonsense. When you can do this without us, you let us know and we’ll all go buy farms somewhere and raise cattle.

  27. Hilary Clinton will say anything that will garner votes. Whether she believes in this theory is irrelevant, for as has been revealed her personal and campaign holds dual positions, one public and one private. I see that just in case the election is lost she has prepared the ground for flight, having transferred a large sum from the Clinton Foundation to Dubai where I understand the Obama’s maybe neighbours.

  28. I couldn’t help smiling when the UK’s Sky News cut away from Hillary Clinton’s speech in North Carolina yesterday, just as she mentioned the phrase ‘climate change’…..
    As the news anchor talked over her, I heard Clinton start to say: ‘If you believe in SCIENCE…’
    Oh, PLEASE – what is that supposed to mean..?

  29. Dr.Frank, Do you have an opinion about Florida Amendment 1?
    I just saw the post about Tamino and i can add some information here. The reason Miami ( Virginia Key ) data only go back to 1992 is because South Beach was widened, which enveloped the pier where the gauge had been for years. The gauge was moved to its current location on Virginia Key, so there is a small overlap problem To skip the overlap problem altogether, we can use the Key West gauge which has been there for 100 years. It shows a rate of 2.37+-0.15 mm/year.

  30. The progressive ban on DDT has led to the death of 50,000,000 blacks and continues to allow malaria to wreak havoc, killing and maiming a million or so a year.
    This anti carbon movement will restrict/reduce our access to consistent and affordable energy. A harsh future for anyone in a cold climate if global warming doesn’t kick in real soon.
    The ban on DDT attacked poor black African nations. (Racist?)
    The attack on affordable and useful carbon based energy is directed at us.
    Do you feel the green love?

    • DDT, by most recent accounts, no longer works on the carriers of malaria. By “banning” its use in the tropics, resistance to the chemical was delayed 50 years. You figure it out.

    • She is probably going to reach CAT V with this new FBI investigation in the offing. Still, how much will it really effect the election? My guess is not much since anyone that hasn’t figured out that she is totally corrupt by now never will.

      • Don’t underestimate those who were still on the fence. Polls appear to have tightened considerably now.

  31. Dr. Frank writes: “In 1893 a much stronger hurricane followed nearly the same track.”
    Dr. Frank, I admire your intentions but I have some difficulty with this declaration; who could we possibly know? We didn’t have sophisticated instruments to make comparative measurements? How could we honestly, and with conviction, make such claims?

Comments are closed.