If you're only tallying hurricanes of Katrina level events or worse and exclude anything less, then models can very well show an *increase* (as stated by the OP)

Sure, but I don't agree that is what OP had in mind. After all moving from a once a century event to a twice in a century event might constitute OP's "drastic[] increase in frequency," but that hardly sits well with the observation that "we're still waiting on this one."

So why are they going on interviews saying the opposite?

Are they?

Who? Actual climate scientists or environmental activists?

When? Since (sceptic) Dr Landsea blew out of the water any suggestion that the historical record showed an increasing frequency of hurricane activity (and compelled the climate science community to accept his finding by showing the damn maths)?

Are you able to cite an interview from recent years (say the last 5 or so) in which a climate scientist of any note is predicting increasing frequency (as opposed to intensity) of tropical storm activity? What is the empirical basis for their scepticism of the (now) orthodox position (and the paper I cited above which includes as authors both Kerry Emanuel and Chris Landsea (ie. both sides of the debate) has to come close to expressing the orthodoxy)?

I feel that if you restricted yourself more to reading the published science (in the reputable journals) and shied away from blogs and interviews, you should be much better informed on matters of science. That's terribly conservative of me, I know.

Keep in mind that a few rolls also don't confirm that the dice are as loaded as you claim they are.

That the dice are loaded was a given in the above example. Even if we know the dice are loaded we cannot with any certainty say that any single occurrence of snakes-eyes is the result of loading. That's the point.

To think that is to misunderstand what Judaism is all about.

Solomon at least (and most likely David too) was (were) clearly polytheistic. Judaism, as opposed to ancient Hebrew religion, requires monotheism and it requires the Torah, which did not exist at that time.

You're trolling now, right? Abraham was provoked into intervening in someone else's war, in order to rescue his cousin...and that makes him a warlord?

No trolling no, I'm quite serious about biblical scholarship.

Abram is said to have "called out the 318 trained men born in his household." That makes him a warlord. Elsewhere the figure of Abram/Abraham that emerges from the text appears at times like a defenceless refugee, however, in Gen 14 he is explicitly described as a warlord (i.e. having a retinue of trained men).

that didn't prevent climate researchers from claiming Katrina-level events will drastically increase in frequency

No, that's the exact opposite from what climate researchers have been claiming. To repeat myself, "[w]ithin the science of climate change that regarding hurricane (and other tropical storm) formation is famously unsettled." The models at least, seem to suggest a probable decrease in the frequency of formation (along with a possible increase in intensity) (Knutson et. al.).

...there is no way to link any particular snake eye event to the hidden weights.

Therein lies the quandary. You know the dice are loaded to come up snakes-eyes; they come up snakes-eyes; but you cannot with any certainty state "those snakes came up because the dice were loaded."

Instead you have to say, "those snakes-eyes coming up again so soon is consistent with the fact that the dice are loaded," or "we could see more and more snakes-eyes with these loaded dice." That doesn't make for so compelling a narrative. And narrative thinking comes much more naturally than statistical thinking.

In a fantasy world ... the sort of thing they would run as a "false flag" operation to look "strong"

Fantasy indeed. While there's no chance, I trust, of the Australian government running this kind of thing as a "false flag operation," success in politics consists of exploiting those circumstance fate throws in your direction.

Reality appears to be a violent idiot doing something counterproductive to his cause ...

In the vaguest sense of 'cause.'

... and a government with no clue what to do about it.

It didn't end particularly well. Whether the LNP is able to extract any political capital from the event remains to be seen.

Judaism existed prior to Moses.

Balderdash. Judaism proper didn't yet exist in the days of David or Solomon. Prior to the days of Moses, yhvh was likely unknown to the Hebrew people.

During the monarchy there was worship of yhvh, and of Elohim (aka El Shadday ... El *) (possibly even the notion central to Judaism that the two were identical) and clearly also other deities. Judaism, as we would understand it, needed to to wait till after the composition of the Torah, which didn't really coalesce until exilic/post-exilic times.

Abraham and Jesus can not accurately be describe as warlords.

Jesus certainly not. As far as Abram/Abraham is concerned, he is clearly described as a warlord in Gen 14.

Judaism is considered as founded byAbraham who precedes Moses by multiple centuries.

You can argue that either way. Your link is too garbled to discuss your source, but if it's the wikipedia article on Judasism that reads "Abraham is hailed as the first Hebrew and the father of the Jewish people ..." Whereas "God revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai" for which reason it is Moses that is usually considered the legendary "founder" of Judaism.

Yes, Moses can be described as a warlord, but as he was not the founder of Judaism (or any other religion) I fail to see your point!

Well the very historical existence of Moses can't be confirmed. However the character described as Moses, (ie as he appears in the Torah) is clearly the founder of henotheistic Yahwism (remember Abraham worshiped El instead). That is to say that strain of ancient Hebrew religious thought which would eventual win out over Hebrew polytheism (largely by authoring the text in exile) to become monotheistic Judaism.

So Moses can certainly be described as the legendary founder of Judaism.

But as soon as this is over, you can bet the poo is going to be flung in all directions in parliament and the media.

This is the sort of event the government needs to leverage if are to have a chance to re-float their electoral prospects.

... except for a couple cases of some lone wacko ...

Isn't that very possibly what we are dealing with here? Some lone wacko in the Lindt cafe? I don't think it has been established (yet) that there are any accomplices, much less any organisation behind this.

IMO the high level of publicity given to this, fueled no doubt by our fear of Islam, is itself dangerous. Sure the fact that it's happening in Martin Place was always going to amplify it next to the more usual suburban day(s) hostage dramas. But hang out an Islamic flag and you get to shut down the entire heart of the city? ... international press ...

What's does that telling serious terror groups? Not it was preventable ... reporters will report.

And there's still the possibility that said lone wacko (and friends imaginary or otherwise) could still kill someone of course.

Hmm. I was pretty sure my maths was sketchy - but now I have actual proof!

It's not that difficult: You choose either (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) or (Problem, Reaction, Solution). Either was you end up with three words. :)

Is it still being anti science when you point out predictions that don't come true ?

It certainly is being "anti-science" when you seek to misrepresent the science as you have done here.

Within the science of climate change that regarding hurricane (and other tropical storm) formation is famously unsettled.

As far as model predictions, these seem to favour a probable decrease in the frequency of formation (along with a possible increase in intensity) (Knutson et. al.). But, in distinct contradistinction to warming itself and its attribution, I doubt any climate scientist would confidently express a relationship between AGW and storm activity at this stage.