No, I have never been to Egypt. My counter-arguments to your theme do require that I have been there. My twenty-plus years of researching pharaonic Egypt are more than sufficient to the cause. In one of the museums where I work we have the tomb of one of Unis' highest officials, so over the years I have become very familiar with that pyramid complex. If you want to debate Unis' burial ground with me, go ahead.
I am not aware of such studies. I'm not sure why Lehner would be involved, given he's not a climatologist. I cannot discount it outright, however, so I invite you to share the full citation of the paper. I would wager your word "significant" constitutes an exaggeration, however. Were Giza that well watered, it would've become cultivatable land. And yet, from the Early Dynastic Period and down through the end of the Old Kingdom, it was a frequent site of burial for untold hundreds of people. The Egyptians rarely buried their dead in cultivatable land.
I certainly don't have the time to pour through my library to provide a bunch of quotes for something so basic. The end of the Neolithic Subpluvial is too well evidenced and understood to be ignored. As one example, however, I can cite Toby Wilkinson's explanation of desertification in Genesis of the Pharaohs (2003). On page 60 he describes how desertification was taking place "in earnest" by about the time the Great Pyramid was being built. I recall that David Wengrow's The Archaeology of Early Egypt (2006) also contains a lot of information on ancient climatological changes and their impacts on migrations and flora and fauna in the prehistoric Near East. Also consider that another well-proven climatological phenomenon, the so-called 4.2 Kiloyear Event, was devastating all of North Africa, the Levant, Mesopotamia, and up into the Hindu Kush by 2200 BCE. This widespread drought was one of the key factors in the collapse of the Egyptian Old Kingdom. Essentially, then, what you're trying to argue is that an area that was already desert became a lush, tropical paradise for a few years and then all of a sudden dried up in a way no Near Easterner had ever seen. This is why I'm skeptical. Well, one of numerous reasons, anyway.
No, I didn't miss it. I observed it and commented on it in Post 178, where I welcomed you to UM. You were suggesting that beer was the main drink of pharaonic Egypt. It was certainly a widely consumed beverage and a staple of the diet, but water still would've been the most commonly consumed drink. That's true now as it was then. And unless one had access to a well, which relatively few did, the main water source was, of course, the Nile. Paleopathological studies have demonstrated that a leading killer in pharaonic Egypt was schistosomiasis (Nunn 2002: 68-69; Filer 1995: 11-12). The parasite is carried chiefly by water snails; hence, the obvious source and transference. The disease is evident in instances of well-preserved livers and bladders and in some cases calcified ova have been found (Nunn 2002: 68). This same disease is one of the leading killers today, second to malaria, in many undeveloped countries, even as easy as it is to treat in modern times.
The Complete Pyramids is a terrific book. It should be in the library of anyone who has an interest in ancient Egypt. It is also far too basic to be a primary research source. You need to read others such as Miroslav Verner's and John Romer's, not to mention Dieter Arnold's seminal work on stone masonry in pharaonic Egypt. I would also recommend Craig Smith's book on how the Great Pyramid was built. Yet, no book written by any historian, Egyptologist, or other specialist would argue the Great Pyramid or any other such monument was built as a rain catchment. Don't expect that to happen.
You would have to explain, for example, why the temples you describe as "cisterns" and such were heavily decorated with relief carving, and fitted with statues and false doors. You would have to explain why so many thousands of officials and family members were buried in adjacent tombs contemporary to these pyramids. Et cetera.
With respect, I would avoid name calling. This is not a schoolyard and we are not children. I have called your rain-catchment idea to task, yes, but I did not ridicule you. The more you resort to such tactics, the less credible you will be. And the shorter lifespan you will have in this forum. If you wish to debate me, do so on the merits of the argument and address my points one by one with a properly corroborated and cited approach. That would be more productive, not to mention more useful of your time and my time.
In closing for now, I saw in one of your earlier posts (in a reply to cormac, I think) your mention of the Oriental Institute. This is one of the museums where I work as a volunteer. I do not claim to be a professional historian, but over the years I have spent countless hours in the Archives there. I am not aware of any holdings in the collections of the O.I.'s professional literature that would support your argument.