Our opinions probably aren't that different.  Sometimes, no doubt, I'm acting too much the gadfly (jerk might be a better word :-))  All of the editors and most of the posters here at OilDrum are great. Personally, I'm just not that interested in diving into the details of depletion modeling like Stuart (I should, but don't have the focus right now).  But given the great amount of work going on, both here, and at other sites (econbrowser, Peak Energy, etc) I tend to focus more on negative contributions--what I find wrong or adding a voice of caveat emptor--rather than actually contributing something.  I realize that is somewhat self-serving and a bit cynical--or negative.  JD, if I might be so bold, is also coming at this issue from a similar perspective to mine, though I think he's a bit more enamored or convinced that humans can technologize their way out of this conundrum.  (He's also contributing more in-depth analysis in many cases).

I'm not so convinced that we can technologize our way out.  And that's coming from some with physics and engineering degrees, twenty years in high technology companies (some of the best if I don't say so myself--BBN and QUALCOMM), and an appreciation for the limits to limits, e.g. the thinking at the turn of the twentieth century that the future of physics was the fifth digit (all was known).  Then the world changed (quantum, relativity, etc).  Nanotechnology to improve solar, for example, a fusion miracle might happen (I doubt it).  I think John Horgan's book "The End of Science" should be on the required reading list for all peak oilers with a scientific bent.  Peak oil is about people accepting and learning to live within limits.  For a society indoctrinated to think that there are no limits (in particular those who came of age in the Reagan years and beyond), this will be hard to accept.