As I explain above, his comment about cell phones demonstrates that he knows less than Dan Quail about "technology". He is a blabbering idiot and you are giving his blabber equal weight to the well researched discourses of Matt Simmons?

For TOD readers who do not have any technology background, just realize there was a reason why the nerds in the engineering degree programs at college were studying all night instead of partying like there's no tomorrow and burning their brain cells on booze. Engineering is hard hard shit (to put it in Georgie Porky Bushie terms).

If you believe there is a real something you can call "Technology" and this "it thing" will save us, you are praying to the Tooth Fairy.

There is no Santa Claus and there is no "Technology". In each market sector there is an incredibly complex set of interlocked technology subsectors and businesses that by luck, sometimes click together. No matter who the hell they are, they all have to obey the laws of Mother Nature if they are building something real. If Mother Nature says you can't suck oil out of a conch shell, then that's the law of nature. No amount of wishfull thinking about "technology" and how "it" is going to save us will reverse the absolute rules of Mother Nature. Mother Nature does not "hear" the wish barks that come out of our pathetic oral cavities. After all, we are freak accidents of evolution and will probably obliterate ourselves fairly soon, thanks to the likes of Dan Quailbullshit Yergin and those that bow in his shadow.

Sorry for the vitriol. Shit begets more shit.

Mmmm.  What was Matt Simmon's PhD in again?
I should say more explicitly that I don't think these attacks over qualifications are all that valid.  This is a very interdisciplinary problem so I don't think any one set of qualifications trumps all others.  Good judgement can arise, or fail to arise, in many different academic or career paths.
This is not a quibble over qualifications.

This is an exposition of hot air.

If you listen very carefully to what Dan Quailhead Yergin says on NPR, he is saying that "Technology" always advances to the point where it happily "surprises" us. It did so for computers (cell phones) and therefore surely it will do so for oil.

This is an issue of substance, not a quibble over academic qualifications.

The man does not know what "technology" is, and yet he waves its flag in proud defiance of his own ignorance. People listen to this babble, and they act on it.

Here is how they act: They say, why should we listen to Matt Simmons? There is an equally valid argument on the other side. Problem is, there isn't.