@MrChips, my sincerest apologies: I forgot we had an appointment, and I missed it by a full year.

I'm still in Florida. What did you want to talk about?

 

11 years later

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weathe...ve-heavy-destruction-nebraska-iowa-rcna149658

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/t...than-half-meter-of-rain-in-5-days/vi-BB1lQaAW

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/othe...rises-to-78-dozens-remain-missing/ar-BB1lUcSX

 

11 years later

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weathe...ve-heavy-destruction-nebraska-iowa-rcna149658

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/t...than-half-meter-of-rain-in-5-days/vi-BB1lQaAW

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/othe...rises-to-78-dozens-remain-missing/ar-BB1lUcSX

You said you wanted to talk about Florida.

 

You said you wanted to talk about Florida.

It’s time will come.

 

It’s time will come.

You offered a hypothesis to test the validity of AGW theory: that some AGW-related catastrophic event will occur in the State of Florida within 10 years -- catastrophically enough to, implicitly, cause me -- personally -- to experience significant hardship.

I've given you 11 years. The hypothesis is tested, and it has failed. The scientific method dictates the theory must be discarded.

Changing the conditions of the test (by changing the time-frame to an indefinite future, or to outcomes that were not predicted by the original hypothesis) in retrospect is Science®, not science.

This was the point of the original discussion: AGW is not science. It cannot even pretend to be.

My point is made. I leave this in closing:

Unscientific American

You may close this thread now -- as is your prerogative.

 

You were right. Nothing changed in 10 years. I wish you well.