He's a sharp guy. It's highly unlikely he misunderstood.
In regard to Greg Palast, IMO Mr. Palast either grossly misunderstood Dr. Hubbert's work, or he deliberately misrepresented Dr. Hubbert's work.--westexas

BrianT -- You say "He's a sharp guy.  It's highly unlikely he misunderstood."

So basically he deliberately misrepresented Dr. Hubbert's work...?  What's his motivation in doing that?

-- I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm posing the question of his motivation in that direction.  (I had actually posted on Palast while back calling on TODs to debunk him), FYI...

-C.

I don't know for sure. My guess is money. As he has built up a certain sort of credibility among some readers, he is being paid to spin this story. When you read what he says, what it points out is how difficult his (or anyone else's) task really is. The arguments in favor of oil depletion are too strong.You don't have to be a rocket scientist to follow the reasoning. Maybe I'm wrong-maybe Greg got really stupid really fast. Maybe Yergin is mentally challenged.  
Palast also has a background in statistics. He can read the numbers. It's very odd to see this sharp guy go this way. No explanation here. It's just odd.
Bought and paid for, perhaps?
Most likely yes.
money talks and the people we are dealing with think anyone has a price.
It wouldn't be money.  Palast is a Leftist (that's no insult in my books - I'm a good deal to the Left even of him, but I come here to read up about Peak Oil rather than preach my politics) and suffers from a problem common to most people who are committed to their political ideas.  He can't accept an idea that seems to pull the rug out from under his whole philosophy.

Peak Oil challenges a lot of people on the traditional Left because they assume that:

(a) Capitalism can only be surpassed in a society of material plenty for all; and

(b) Admitting that energy consumption is way past a sustainable level and has to be cut would bar the way to socialism.

IMO, he's wrong in that (a) actually says a good deal less than he thinks because the concept of "plenty" is actually a social construct; and (b) is plain incorrect.

At a guess, his idea of "socialism" would probably have a lot more in common with the economics of the late, unlamented USSR than mine does, though I'm certainly not accusing him of supporting the political regime that existed there.

I think most humans overestimate the influence of humanity itself on daily life. I think that's a simple extension of the human ego. Particularly today, after 60 years of abundance in the west, almost none of us include material limits as a variable in our daily calculus. Also, to someone like Palast who does a lot of political commentary, most issues are simply political problems with political solutions.
Relax,

The fluid flow will never end.
God gave "us" dominion over all things on this Earth.
There are plenty of alternatives for the blood that feeds our non-negotiable way of life. After the sweet and easy ones are gone, why, we'll just drive our straws into the alligators next. No worries:

(Mosquitos are We)

Palast is a disinformationalist.  He is a sheepdog or gatekeeper to herd the gullible on the left in the same manner that fellow peak oil deniers Corsi and Alex Jones herd the gullible on the religious right.  So get mad about the 2004 election in Ohio or the abiotic oil coverup or the Illuminati staging mock human sacrifices at Bohemian Grove.  But, PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE PEAK OIL BEHIND THE CURTAIN.