> But again, it's the boy who cried wolf. Even if they claimed the Earth was going to end 100 times, and 100 times they were incorrect, that doesn't mean time number 101 is incorrect too.
The fact that a stopped clock is correct twice a day is no reason to consult it.
It's both efficient and good to scorn and ignore folks who get it wrong consistently.
> And given that both are currently cost-competitive (or nearing that) and will only get cheaper, now is clearly the time to begin the process.
If they're really cost-competitive today and getting cheaper, no govt action is needed.
If govt action is required to make it cost-competitive, it isn't cost-competitive.
But just because a clock is broken doesn't mean it's wrong, especially if non-broken clocks are showing the same time. That's exactly the problem in this case, we're ignoring credible people who don't have a long history of crying wolf for being too close in proximity to those that do.
The fact is, most people can't (or can't be bothered to) tell the difference between a respectable climatologist and a hippie worried about global cooling.
The fact that a stopped clock is correct twice a day is no reason to consult it.
It's both efficient and good to scorn and ignore folks who get it wrong consistently.
> And given that both are currently cost-competitive (or nearing that) and will only get cheaper, now is clearly the time to begin the process.
If they're really cost-competitive today and getting cheaper, no govt action is needed.
If govt action is required to make it cost-competitive, it isn't cost-competitive.