350
When scientifi c information, either facts or
predictions, are published, they consider of
course the level of knowledge at the moment. We
do think that our knowledge of the complexity we
try to capture and seize is incomplete and that
one scientifi c conclusion at a moment can be
false later. It is more than that for prediction. We
give two examples: one general and the other
limited.
The general example refers to the scientifi c
community considerations over time when considering factors of climate change and their consequences on the future of the coral reef
ecosystem. In the early 1990s, the scientifi c community was considering that the reefs were
threatened in their very existence for reasons of
population pressure in developing countries. The
issue of climate change was announced to debate
at end of the 1980s with mainly two factors: the
temperature and sea level rise. It is only later that
the issue of acidifi cation of marine waters and its
impact on calcifying organisms with calcareous
tests appeared. The fi rst publication on the relationship between aragonite saturation and pH
dates only from 1992 (Smith and Buddemeier),
and that was the beginning of the acidifi cation
problem for coral reefs with the fi rst work of
Gattuso et al. 1998 . As revealed by two surveys
conducted in 1993 and 2004 (Kleypas and Eakin
2007 ), coral reef scientists were concerned and
published on usual reef damage, ranking as 37th
the acidifi cation problem which was just emerging. However, this factor is now considered the
fi rst threat to coral reefs and for the future and as
important enough to create work on its economic
impact (Brander et al. 2009 ). The advanced and
pioneer papers (Smith and Buddemeier 1992 ;
Gattuso et al. 1998 ) are led to completely revise
the main future causes of degradations of coral
reefs and prediction. One cannot forget that science in progress may bring on the desk other factors, new or not, with or without interference
with known or unknown factors, in our ability to
handle the complexity of nature.
Another example of prediction, more than a
decade ago, was on what was mentioned to happen for coral reefs when considering the effect of
the rise of sea surface temperature. Due to ecological observations at that time, some papers
concluded that bleaching and mortality of corals
will be very common in 2015 (Hoegh-Guldberg
1999 ). This prediction 15 years ago is wrong.
Moreover, since that time, the scientifi c knowledge is improving on the adaptation or acclimatization of coral species to a rise of sea level
temperature (Guest et al. 2012 ; Logan et al. 2013 ;
Palumbi et al. 2014 ). The present knowledge
does not allow the simple prediction 15 years ago
considering that elevated temperature induces
coral mortality. This is not so simply the case.
These examples show that we must not forget
that predictions are only predictions with current
knowledge and are delivered with some uncertainty to be confi rmed, amplifi ed or denied later
according to the advancement of knowledge
showing all the unexpected complexity of organisms and ecosystems. These predictions must be
considered with caution before concluding that
the reefs will survive or will exist no more in
2100. These predictions cannot take into account
future advances in knowledge that all go towards
more complexity of interacting factors causing
change. Scientists cannot imagine and foresee the
potential of nature to fi nd solutions or the ingenuity of man to fi nd technological parades faced to
degrading factors.
7.2
Catastrophism
At this stage of thought, it is necessary to consider prediction in an objective analysis considering what we know, which is far more incomplete,
and without engaging ourselves in catastrophism.
Catastrophe and disaster are synonyms (Ramade
2006 ) but express an attitude to assume the worst.
This ambiance of catastrophism that joins many
myths and legends was back in fashion and
strength in 1980 when it was popularized that the
meteorite killed the dinosaurs, explaining the
massive biological crisis in the late Cretaceous
(Babin 2007 ). We are informed by the media and
by all recent means of communication (the
Internet) of all catastrophic events all over the
world. Such a situation, globalisation, reinforced
the ‘catastrophic atmosphere’ in which we are
B. Salvat
When scientifi c information, either facts or
predictions, are published, they consider of
course the level of knowledge at the moment. We
do think that our knowledge of the complexity we
try to capture and seize is incomplete and that
one scientifi c conclusion at a moment can be
false later. It is more than that for prediction. We
give two examples: one general and the other
limited.
The general example refers to the scientifi c
community considerations over time when considering factors of climate change and their consequences on the future of the coral reef
ecosystem. In the early 1990s, the scientifi c community was considering that the reefs were
threatened in their very existence for reasons of
population pressure in developing countries. The
issue of climate change was announced to debate
at end of the 1980s with mainly two factors: the
temperature and sea level rise. It is only later that
the issue of acidifi cation of marine waters and its
impact on calcifying organisms with calcareous
tests appeared. The fi rst publication on the relationship between aragonite saturation and pH
dates only from 1992 (Smith and Buddemeier),
and that was the beginning of the acidifi cation
problem for coral reefs with the fi rst work of
Gattuso et al. 1998 . As revealed by two surveys
conducted in 1993 and 2004 (Kleypas and Eakin
2007 ), coral reef scientists were concerned and
published on usual reef damage, ranking as 37th
the acidifi cation problem which was just emerging. However, this factor is now considered the
fi rst threat to coral reefs and for the future and as
important enough to create work on its economic
impact (Brander et al. 2009 ). The advanced and
pioneer papers (Smith and Buddemeier 1992 ;
Gattuso et al. 1998 ) are led to completely revise
the main future causes of degradations of coral
reefs and prediction. One cannot forget that science in progress may bring on the desk other factors, new or not, with or without interference
with known or unknown factors, in our ability to
handle the complexity of nature.
Another example of prediction, more than a
decade ago, was on what was mentioned to happen for coral reefs when considering the effect of
the rise of sea surface temperature. Due to ecological observations at that time, some papers
concluded that bleaching and mortality of corals
will be very common in 2015 (Hoegh-Guldberg
1999 ). This prediction 15 years ago is wrong.
Moreover, since that time, the scientifi c knowledge is improving on the adaptation or acclimatization of coral species to a rise of sea level
temperature (Guest et al. 2012 ; Logan et al. 2013 ;
Palumbi et al. 2014 ). The present knowledge
does not allow the simple prediction 15 years ago
considering that elevated temperature induces
coral mortality. This is not so simply the case.
These examples show that we must not forget
that predictions are only predictions with current
knowledge and are delivered with some uncertainty to be confi rmed, amplifi ed or denied later
according to the advancement of knowledge
showing all the unexpected complexity of organisms and ecosystems. These predictions must be
considered with caution before concluding that
the reefs will survive or will exist no more in
2100. These predictions cannot take into account
future advances in knowledge that all go towards
more complexity of interacting factors causing
change. Scientists cannot imagine and foresee the
potential of nature to fi nd solutions or the ingenuity of man to fi nd technological parades faced to
degrading factors.
7.2
Catastrophism
At this stage of thought, it is necessary to consider prediction in an objective analysis considering what we know, which is far more incomplete,
and without engaging ourselves in catastrophism.
Catastrophe and disaster are synonyms (Ramade
2006 ) but express an attitude to assume the worst.
This ambiance of catastrophism that joins many
myths and legends was back in fashion and
strength in 1980 when it was popularized that the
meteorite killed the dinosaurs, explaining the
massive biological crisis in the late Cretaceous
(Babin 2007 ). We are informed by the media and
by all recent means of communication (the
Internet) of all catastrophic events all over the
world. Such a situation, globalisation, reinforced
the ‘catastrophic atmosphere’ in which we are
B. Salvat