I think there is room for critiquing conferences and events associated with peak oil, even if there tends to be strong disagreement with many or even all of the participants.

Ruppert I can do without.  I'm not sure he brings anything to the discussion.  Kunstler has merit as a critique of consumerism, but I do agree that there are many better representatives of the anti-consumerist viewpoint.

At the heart of peak oil is the idea of energy production, consumption, geology, physics, and economics.  That should remain the focus.  Kunstler should be playing a very very minor role in all this.  He's a critic of consumer society and suburbia.  That critique, in essence, can be summerized in a small paragraph.  And as an expert on energy, economics, or visualizing how society will deal with depletion, I think Kunstler brings nothing.  No real expertise--other than some ideas on how to redesign society.

Same goes for Heinberg.  A few ideas on sustainability living.  Nothing more.  They aren't experts.  But they've been able to build up a lot of frequenty flyer miles through their many speaking engagements.

Here's another perspective that is in agreement with the above post (shooting the messenger).  Part of my ad hominem discussion earlier is that one should, at some point, ignore certain aspects of a problem, including people.  It's just not discussed.  Don't even speak to it.  All the 9/11 stuff, for example.  One can easily say:  not discussed.  Geopolitics, fascism, etc, etc.  One can also easily say: not discussed.  Same goes for survivalism.  Join a survivalist online bulletin board to discuss survivalism.  It need not be attached to peak oil, and degrades the level of discourse.

Later tonight and tomorrow peakguy and I will comment on people like John Darnell (Bartlett's science advisor) and David Pimentel (a Cornell biologist who's an expert on organics and alternative energy). These are people that I trust you will find more credible--the whole conference wasn't the extremes (but they're more fun to write about).

I strongly disagree that just by mentioning people like Ruppert, we're doing either peak oil or the website a disservice. As I said in the other thread, many people are coming to the topic on the basis of Ruppert's and Kunstler's writing. It's up to a webiste like this one for people to point out where their arguments go wrong, if you think they do. I DO NOT think that appropriate action is just to ignore them, at least not right now when we're still desperate for the issue to be getting more national attention. If you think they're wrong, explain why.

Jack (and TRE) --

I routinely see some pretty weird stuff at TOD but that pales in comparison to limiting discourse on the cultural side of things with respect to peak oil. I could do without Ruppert and Kunstler is certainly no peak oil expert, but let's not get into some PO fascism kind of thing. If you think something is bullshit (9/11 conspiracies, whatever), just say so. Let's not shoot any messengers, OK? If I thought that what I say about deepwater drilling or criticising the oil markets had to go through a "correctness" filter, I wouldn't post here at all and neither would anyone else except card carrying TOD party members. I hate even having to say this.

I for one disagree.  What is so good about the Oil Drum is that it is willing to talk about the full range of the Peak Oil spectrum.  This kind of talk will pass away soon, but at least it has not been recognized in the context of civil discussion.

The petrocollapse thread was a giant step backwards in credibility building and a leap forward in associating peak oil with World Trade Center conspiracies, alien invasions, and the paranormal.

Umm... no one brought up alien invasions, or paranormal activity. Not to say that those two topics haven't been associated with 9/11, but stop and think about it: if our government was in any way culpable in 9/11 then it would make perfect sense to have an active disinformation campaign intended to associate questioning the event with the most outlandish rubbish in the hope that both will be rejected. And indeed, this is what appears to be happening.

The thread associated with the earlier posting on Ruppert did indeed mention World Trade Center anomalies, especially in regard to the collapse of Building 7 (which few people are even aware of), but I have to point out that Ruppert himself does not promote this line of inquiry - he brings a policeman's "motive, means, and opportunity" approach to his investigation which I find pretty iron-clad.