Climate-change vulnerability assessment has become a frequently employed tool, with the purpose of informing policy-makers attempting to adapt to global change conditions. However, we suggest that there are three reasons to suspect that vulnerability assessment often promises more certainty, and more useful results, than it can deliver. First, the complexity of the system it purports to describe is greater than that described by other types of assessment. Second, it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain data to test proposed interactions between different vulnerability drivers. Third, the time scale of analysis is too long to be able to make robust projections about future adaptive capacity. We analyze the results from a stakeholder workshop in a European vulnerability assessment, and find evidence to support these arguments.