What's wrong with this logic?

Pensacola hasn't had a major hurricane since Ivan in 2004. We overdue for one. 

This statement commits a couple of logical fallacies and exhibits poor reasoning. Let's break them down:

1. **Gambler's Fallacy**: This is the most prominent fallacy in the statement. The Gambler's Fallacy is the mistaken belief that if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, it will happen more frequently in the future (or vice versa). In this case, the fact that Pensacola hasn't had a major hurricane since 2004 does not increase the likelihood that one is overdue. Hurricanes are random meteorological events that are influenced by a multitude of factors, none of which are related to the timing of past hurricanes.

2. **Misunderstanding of Probability**: The statement implies that the likelihood of a hurricane striking an area is influenced by the time elapsed since the last major hurricane. In reality, weather patterns and hurricane formation are driven by complex and independently occurring climatic conditions, not by previous occurrences within a specific area.

3. **Lack of Evidence**: The statement doesn't provide any scientific basis or evidence to suggest why Pensacola would be "overdue" for a hurricane. Proper reasoning would involve an analysis of contributing meteorological factors, historical patterns, and possibly even discussion of climate change impacts, none of which are present.

4. **Inductive Reasoning Flaw**: The assertion assumes a pattern based on insufficient data. Just because Pensacola has not experienced a major hurricane since 2004, it does not logically follow that one is imminent. The sample size and historical context are inadequate to draw such a conclusion.

In conclusion, the logic in the statement is flawed due to the Gambler's Fallacy, a misunderstanding of probability, lack of evidence, and incorrect inductive reasoning.