Daniel Sarewitz: Climate Predictions | Nature
From a column in Nature ("Tomorrow never knows" sub) by Daniel Sarewitz, co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes:
Predictions are not instructions that people simply follow to make better decisions. They are pieces of an intricate puzzle that may sometimes contribute to improved decisions. ...
[F]rom a societal perspective, perhaps the best thing that ever happened in the field of earthquake research was the recognition that earthquake prediction was likely to be impossible. In recent decades, the priorities of the US Geological Survey's earthquake-hazard programme have moved away from prediction and towards the assessment, communication and reduction of vulnerabilities. This evolution has demanded closer collaboration between scientists and diverse regional and state decision-makers, to provide information that can help improve construction practices, land-use decisions, disaster-response plans and public awareness. ...
Strange as it may seem, the right lessons for the future of climate science come not from the success in predicting thunderstorms, floods and hurricanes, but from the failure to predict earthquakes.
I don't agree with the author on all points. The science of climate modeling is essential for its ability to inform long-term thinking. Still, as climate and other environmental issues force an ongoing reassessment of the role of science in society, the earthquake analogy has something to offer.
See also: Steve Easterbrook on "How good are predictions from climate models?"
