Peak oil refuters often claim that peak oil proponents are cassandras, histrionic, etc. However, histrionics rather than reasoned argument seem to be common to many in this debate. I have yet to see adequate refutation of the main peak oil evidence: patterns of increased production, followed by peak and decline in nation after nation. Peak oil is not "just a theory." There is empirical evidence. It is ok to admit that some peak oil proponents have been premature or have made faulty prediction based on inadequate evidence. Despite apparent peak of C & C in 2005 and all liquids in 2006, it is unclear whether or not production can be increased in the future. I believe it is not warranted to declare peak as there have been plateaus, declines and subsequent increases in production in the past. There is a range of predictions for peak with the vast majority between 2005 and 2020. I don't know about you, but I consider 13 years as an outside figure to be rather imminent, requiring urgent response. The price of being wrong is much higher when one goes with peak refuters than with peak proponents. If you respond as if what the peak oil proponents suggest is a likely outcome, then you will most likely choose a course which will deter climate change. The evidence for human contribution to climate change is clear and convincing. If you respond as if the peak oil refuters predictions are accurate, you risk being wrong on both energy and climate change. Overcoming denial requires more than evidence: the only thing I can think of is to keep beating the drum.