Why can’t science at least doubt about earthquakes’ forecast?

Earthquake’s forecast are not possible according scientific community and so Giampaolo Giuliani was reported to police for “spreading alarm”.
But I can remember a case of alarmism in december 2008 with news spreading from all italian newspapers and radios: the Tiber (Tevere) river was expected to overflow on December the 12th. I can remember I was on A4 highway, in queue as usual, I was looking for news about traffic and all I could get were minute by minute updates about Rome: Tevere’s water level, people evacuated from zones interested by possible risks and so on. I’m sure being prepared is better than blaming after tragedy occurred. But the point is: that day, with all TV’s channels ready for live videos, I can’t remember anything so special happened, at least nothing if compared to present tragedy in Abruzzo.
Weather forecast are commonly accepted and when a possible risk is found the Civil Protection Agency is allerted.
But are weather forecast always right? So why do we trust them? Why can’t we give this earthquake forecast the same level of reliability we would give to unconfident weather forecast?
Was really Roma’s bad weather forecast in December more accurate?

However not all scientific voices arise against earthquake forecast: according to Pier Francesco Biagi, member of the Bari Inter-University Physics Department, a world leader in research in this field, these kind of forecasts are not completely impossible. They just require more research and better techniques.  And for new discoveries in every field of science the right approach, I should say, is not blind mistrust but a rigorous and  unbiased search for a falsification as the only way (following Popper) to confirm or discard anything valuable.

In the past a lot of commonly accepted theories and statements asserted by official science revealed themselves to be wrong and were replaced by the ones now regarded as the basic laws of chemistry, physics, etc… Just to mention some examples:

1. “Earth is flat” Columbus and Magellan proved it to be wrong;
2. “Earth is steady at the center of the universe” Copernicus and Galilei proved it to be wrong;
3. “Chemical reactions involving oxidations are driven by phlogiston” Lavoisier proved it to be wrong;
4. “The matter is continuos” Rutherford, Bohr and all modern quantum physics experiment proved it to be wrong;
5. “Space and time are absolute” Einstein proved it to be wrong;
6. “Earthquakes can’t be foreseen” Why shouldn’t science at least doubt about it

Elisa Camozzi & Umberto M. Meotto