A recurring frustration is that better models have not led to faster action. This expectation rests on a flawed assumption: that information automatically produces behaviour change. Psychology, sociology and political science tell a different story.
Humans like affirmation. We interpret information through existing mental models, identities and values. If any (new) information backs up our values, we are far more inclined to accept it as valid. On the other hand, if information challenges our world views, we tend to question, downplay, or outright ignore it. Climate models often destabilise deeply held assumptions about normality, progress and security. That destabilisation can trigger defensive reactions as uncertainty threatens social and emotional stability. In this sense, climate models are cognitively and politically disruptive. They challenge not only policies, but worldviews.
From prediction to decision suppor
This is why models alone will not change behaviour. But they are good for confirming or rejecting a thesis. But models should not be taken as solemn answer. The most productive role of climate models is in that sense not prediction, but decision support. Instead of asking, “What exactly will happen?”, models are better used to ask: Which futures are unacceptable? Which choices are robust under uncertainty? Where do trade-offs become unavoidable? What happens if we delay?
Used this way, models do not replace politics or ethics, like the way their are sometimes used. They inform negotiation. This perspective aligns closely with the idea of climate change as a wicked problem: a challenge that cannot be solved by optimisation alone, but requires continuous democratic coordination across competing goals and values.
The danger of technocratic misunderstanding
Problems arise when climate models are treated as if they could deliver a single correct answer. This technocratic misunderstanding fuels two opposing reactions: blind faith in “the numbers,” and outright rejection of modelling as political manipulation.
Both positions are counterproductive. Models neither dictate policy nor excuse inaction. They make consequences visible and thereby force societies to confront choices they might prefer to avoid.
As Donella Meadows famously argued, the deepest leverage in systems lies not in parameters, but in goals and mental models. Climate models are powerful when they help shift what societies consider realistic, responsible and legitimate.
Climate modelling in practice: the KNOWING approach
Being engaged in climate transformation, this is especially important.
Climate change is a cross-sectoral challenge that cuts across traditional boundaries. Public institutions, industry, science and civil society cannot operate in isolation; they must collaborate closely and continuously. This makes the co-creation of solutions with stakeholders from all sectors not just beneficial, but essential for success.
The Horizon Europe–funded research project KNOWING was therefore designed from the outset as a co-creative process. This was not an add-on, but a foundational principle to ensure meaningful impact and real-world applicability. As a result, the project has successfully established the necessary conditions for effective climate action.
From modelling to transformation pathways
Through its modelling framework, KNOWING allows regions to explore concrete questions: future energy demand, renewable expansion, land-use conflicts, flood and heat risks, infrastructure needs. These models will explicitly be linked to a Decision Support System, translating results into scenarios, trade-offs and options rather than prescriptions.
Today, four years after the project’s launch, the four KNOWING regions across Europe have each developed a clear climate transformation pathway: the city of Tallinn in Estonia, Granollers in Spain, Naples in Italy, and the German region of South Westphalia. These pathways provide structured yet flexible orientations for navigating the transition, grounded in both scientific analysis and stakeholder engagement.
Co-creation as infrastructure
Crucially, modelling in KNOWING is combined with Local Hubs institutionalised stakeholder networks where administrations, businesses, civil society, citizens and experts jointly interpret model results and negotiate implications. Models become part of a shared learning process, not an external authority. Complemented by Playful Trainings, which build systems understanding and empathy, KNOWING treats climate modelling as a social practice as much as a scientific one.
Conclusion: models won’t save us — but without them, we are blind
Climate models cannot tell us what kind of society we should be. They cannot resolve ethical conflicts or eliminate political disagreement. And they will not, on their own, change behaviour. What they can do is something indispensable: they make long-term consequences visible, expose hidden trade-offs, and anchor collective decisions in a shared understanding of risk.
In a transformation that will unfold over decades, climate models are not crystal balls. They are navigation instruments. They do not choose the destination but without them, we would not even see the reef ahead.
About KNOWING
KNOWING is a Horizon Europe project that develops tools, models and participatory formats to support climate-transformation. By combining scientific analysis with local knowledge and stakeholder input, the project supports regions and sectors to understand climate risks, assess options, and design effective, inclusive pathways for change.