The «heads / tails» analogy to try to justify an opposite conclusion (i.e. «climate in 100 years is easier to
predict than tomorrow's weather») is obviously flawed, for the reasons you point out.
Inflation ten years from now is harder to
predict than tomorrow's.
Not exact matches
And if
tomorrow's job report shows no signs of real wage growth (which is what economists
predict it won't), the Fed's case for a rate hike will start to look more faith - based
than empirically driven.
I probably have more chance of picking the first three (in order) at
tomorrow's Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe
than successfully
predicting how Slaven will choose to start the game this afternoon.
I
predict that winter will be colder
than summer, the Sun will come up
tomorrow, and you'll continue to be an undistinguished mathematician claiming to be a climate scientist (whatever you're defining that to be at the moment).
At page 66 they state: «In
Tomorrow's Lawyers [Oxford University Press, 2013], we
predict that the legal world will change «more radically over the next two decades»
than «over the last two centuries» [p. xiii].»