There are whacko extremists who believe in evolution and quantum mechanics too. Does that make either of those topics less real just because some whacko extremists believe them? I have no idea why you quoted that part of the article. I can make guesses but none are nice so I will refrain. How about we stick to the facts though? Wasn't that Dave's original intent?

As for IEA predictions, which is the topic of this thread, yes the IEA has a pretty bad track record but it is consistently bad in one direction only. It's not random noise where they are too optimistic one year and too pessimistic another. There is a specific trend here that can be shown from observing their predictions against actuals for several years. And that trend reinforces the concerns of peak oilers while it also discredits cornucopians who rely on those same IEA optimistic predictions that everything will be ok.

I'm sure Halfin can defend himself just fine without my help, but I would like to jump in here and point out that he said explicitly that hose comments were "a colorful bit of curmudgeonry but IMO not that helpful except to remind us that predictions on all sides have a pretty bad track record in this field."  

If you want to slap around someone for the content of those comments, why not drop Adam Porter an e-mail?  From what little contact I've had with him he seems to be a level-headed guy, and very open to communication with readers/listeners.

And for that matter, I'm with Halfin 100% on this one.  Porter's comments weren't what I would consider helpful, but it's certainly true that you can find a LOT of wildly off-base predictions on all sides of the peak oil debate.