I'm not inherently disagreeing with the comments regarding confirmation bias and the ability to predict, but if I may suggest some of you are all falling victim to it as we speak (type, actually). The author of the article seems to have fallen victim to it also.
Yes, there are problems with predicting the future. We have to make assumptions, based on our incomplete information of the universe, and like with plotting the trajectory of an interplanetary satellite, a small error can produce a significant "off target."
But the author focuses on those errors that have manifested in the media, which tend to be an extremely biased filter, seeking (and warping) stories that are more sensationalistic and more negative. They are driven by the need to profit by having folks read their stuff. They do not reflect the true state of predictions, and only include the misses and not the hits (e.g., on a smaller scale, that the work of John Gottman and his research on relationships and the improved capacity to better predict the longevity of them based on brief interactions between couple members).
But interpersonal relationships are smaller systems. The larger the system, the more complex it will be, and hence the greater the error. The solution is multiple research programs with diverse research methods, and then see where the evidence converges. Always. What one person finds or predicts has little interest to me. When I find similar results found by multiple independent researchers, that's where I put my focus.
Unfortunately, the general public doesn't see that, and they pick and choose those studies and predictions that confirm their already existing beliefs, which, as has been alluded to, is the real "confirmation bias" issue, it seems to me.