We've had the apocalyptic climate prophecies every decade and towards the end of each they move the goal post again and again.
Then other scientists offer alternative views that point out that flaw and they are automatically not deemed as science despite the geological history of earth's magnetic poles shifting and recorded climate changes.
The fuel we burn barely makes a dent on the overall climate change effect. You are running out of things to blame so you keep moving the goal posts.
We don't know how much he'll drink before he gets cirrhosis. Now he's 60 and should have had it already. We still think he'll have it despite previously not predicting the timeline correctly.
You seem less interested in whether the analogy is accurate than in making sure or desiring someone is dead by the end of it. I do find it to be weird way to respond to low stakes banter.