When it comes to Climate, No Rights or Wrongs. Yet.

From the NYT, of all places, this game-changing report:

Suppose, as some climate experts advise, that the new national GHG guidelines due this spring will lower the recommended level of carbon dioxide. Suppose further that climate experts in New York and Washington succeed in forcing industry to emit less CO2. What would be the effect?

Stepping away from predicting the consequences for ice caps or rainfall, this report takes a more human approach:

• More than 44,000 deaths would be prevented annually (as estimated recently in The New England Journal of Medicine).
  
• About 150,000 deaths per year would be prevented annually (as estimated by the IPCC).
  
• Hundreds of millions of people would be subjected to an experiment with unpredictable and possibly adverse effects
  
• Americans would use even more energy than they do today.
  
• Not much one way or the other.
  

Don’t worry, there’s no wrong answer, at least not yet. That’s the beauty of the climate debate: there’s so little reliable evidence that you can imagine just about any outcome.

A refreshing blast of candor, a final admission of the blindingly obvious from the MSM?

Hardly. Just some Daily Duck™ misdirection. Replace all climate terms with their salty variants, and you will get the published story.

What did not get their attention, but should have, is uncertainty in the face of a system that is amenable to controlled studies, statistical comparisons, and actual outcomes, compared climate scientism, to which none of these things apply, and about which they are absolutely certain.