No offense at all.

You're saying exactly what I'm saying, in a sense.

"Belief" is irrefutable; peak oil, on the other hand, being subject to crappy data, is provisional, changing, irritatingly difficult to pin down.

It's that word, "belief," getting thrown around a lot that I don't like. See the crappy blob "Debunking Peak Oil," and you'll see what I mean. It's the idea of peak oil being a belief system that critics are seizing upon.

Again: peak oil does not require faith, which is what belief is all about.

What you are objecting to are irrational beliefs. Many of our beliefs are based on past facts as baseline data and then extrapolated into the future and which have various probabilities assigned to them by us.

When I encounter cornucopians, I tend to think of these as people with data sets less complete than my own. Their extrapolations are valid and have been valid historically yet they are lacking the additional data that transforms the expectation of continued oil availability into oil depletion.

The problem that occurs in human beings is that many, perhaps most, of us strive to not change beliefs even when the data set is expanded to include new data (or correct erroneous old data) that yields a different conclusion.