Have we oversold climate change?

I hope the answer is yes, in the sense that I don't want to see the even the mid-case scenarios come to pass. But this is a legitimate question, coming out of the American Geophysical Union meeting. Kevin Vranes says he senses a growing feeling that maybe climate scientists have gone a bit too far:

We tried for years - decades - to get them to listen to us about climate change. To do that we had to ramp up our rhetoric. We had to figure out ways to tone down our natural skepticism (we are scientists, after all) in order to put on a united face. We knew it would mean pushing the science harder than it should be. We knew it would mean allowing the boundary-pushers on the "it's happening" side free reign while stifling the boundary-pushers on the other side. But knowing the science, we knew the stakes to humanity were high and that the opposition to the truth would be fierce, so we knew we had to dig in. But now they are listening. Now they do believe us. Now they say they're ready to take action. And now we're wondering if we didn't create a monster. We're wondering if they realize how uncertain our projections of future climate are. We wonder if we've oversold the science. We're wondering what happened to our community, that individuals caveat even the most minor questionings of barely-proven climate change evidence, lest they be tagged as "skeptics." We're wondering if we've let our alarm at the problem trickle to the public sphere, missing all the caveats in translation that we have internalized. And we're wondering if we've let some of our scientists take the science too far, promise too much knowledge, and promote more certainty in ourselves than is warranted

I say there wasn't really an alternative; the Bush administration and even more agreeable governments weren't and still aren't taking the matter seriously enough, given the stakes. What else were responsible scientists to do?

So now, according to Vranes, the question is, how do we proceed? How do we educate the policy-makers on the nature of the uncertainties that are still very much part of climate predictions?

If the more dire predictions are correct, the climate science community doesn't have to worry. At the same time, policy is still light years away from what's necessary, and I suspect the pressure to de-emphasize the uncertainties will remain for some time.

Of course, here on the Island of Doubt, uncertainty isn't a bad thing. I look forward to a world transformed to anticipate climate change by shifting away from expensive, dirty, centralized, fossil-fuel-based economies in favor of clean, affordable, decentralized, more equitable, energy-distribution networks, regardless of how hot it gets. I say it's a win-win scenario. If we haven't oversold climate change, great. If we have, that's just fine, too.

If we do make it through this most challenging period of change and put the brakes on global warming -- there's no guarantee we will -- then I doubt history will condemn us for jumping the gun. We will have made the world a better place.