See, the whole 'boy who cried wolf' analogy actually has no part to play in this debate about peak dates.

That boy cried wolf because he was bored.

Lets replay the story, only this time the boy cried wolf because he thought maybe he saw a wolf, or smelt a wolf, or saw the sheep come running as though there was a wolf.

If it weren't for Colin Campbell, would TOD and general Peak Oil awareness be anywhere like where they are now.

Those who advocate avoiding predictions, just incase they come to early, are like some sheep-herder who hangs on until he's quite sure whether its a wolf or just a wild dog killing the herd before running to get the townsfolk.

I'd FAR rather be seen as a crackpot by the ignorant-to-date, and find myself prepared when the inevitable arrives, than worry that the ignorant might choose to see me as a crackpot because they're not broadminded enough to realise that someone yelling wolf isn't necessarily just relieving boredom just 'cos the wolf isn't immediately visible when they go to look.

Pitt, to my mind the argument you make is just totally irrational - and dangerous. Thank whatever we thank for the likes of Colin Campbell for getting us here, today.

[rant over - that ones been building for a while]

[]edit - I retract 'dangerous' - because I don't think those who are saying 'stop making predictions' are actually going to have any effect on those who do]]
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)

How are we supposed to muzzle him?

Disavowal.

If someone is doing something that reflects badly on a group, and that group does not take pains to distance itself from that person, it's assumed he or she is representative of the group, fair or unfair as that may be.

In this particular case, it might be helpful to see peak oil folk explain why predictions of a specific peak date miss the point, especially in response to media throwing attention at those predictions. Additionally important, though, is to not actively engage in that kind of obsessing over peak dates and predictions - and, unfortunately, doing so is pretty common. People need to not harp on about peak dates, and to stop lionizing those who do so - even though that group includes most of the big names of peak oil.

Fundamentally, a particular peak date only really matters if you expect production to fall off a cliff right afterwards, and - honestly - that's a pretty silly expectation given the broad range of world production. Absent that, the difference between "up 0.3%" and "down 0.3%" is fairly negligible: both are going to result in higher prices, demand destruction, substitution, and increased interest in alternatives.

Crying wolf and predicting or calling a peak may be great for getting attention, but at the cost of diverting attention - and credibility - away from the basic problem of demand outstripping supply. It's not easy to argue against both those who underplay the problem and those who overplay it, but it's important to do so in order for the problem to be seen as it truly is, and to be dealt with maximally efficiently and minimally painfully.

Just FYI, when oil prices are rising rapidly, and production is stagnant and discoveries continue to be dismal, calling a theory that oil production is peaking is as childish as anything a child would say.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. The verb in the sentence is "calling":

"Just FYI, when X, and Y, calling a theory that Z is W."

Did you mean to say "calling a theory...debased is as..."?

Of course, that'd be wrong anyway. WSJ may be wrong to call the theory debased, but they're not childish to do so.

Somebody making a too-early prediction of oil production peaking doesn't debase a theory that oil-production is about to peak.

Of course it does.

Suppose I have a theory, complete with equations and stuff, that says you'll win the lottery tomorrow. And I keep telling you this, and, day after day, you keep not winning the lottery.

After the 10th time I tell you "my theory says you're going to win the lottery tomorrow!!" and you don't, you're not going to pay much attention when I tell you that yet again. The theory has been shown to have extremely poor predictive power - "debased", in the WSJ's terminology - and hence cannot be taken as viable evidence.

Exactly the same is true about the theory "oil is peaking now!" - it's been trotted out multiple times before, and has always been wrong. Your argument is simply "this time is different!!", and maybe you're right, but the simple fact of the matter is that that's not enough to rehabilitate a debased theory. You need evidence that it really is different this time, and that the factors which made all the previous predictions wrong don't apply anymore.

Simply denying that repeated failure discredits a theory is nothing more than willful self-delusion.

they are crying "all's clear, everyone can come out and play".

Straw man - nobody's saying that. OPEC isn't, IEA isn't, and even the EIA is talking about "the substantial range of uncertainty in the world’s future oil markets".

If you want to convince an opponent to change his beliefs, you need to understand what his current beliefs are first. Dismissing most of the world as silly cornucopians isn't a very effective strategy.

OK - flow rates are going to under perform our expectations over the short term due to political considerations and over the long term due to geologic constraints and that will cause issues with the American consumer because we are unable to secure a reliable source of affordable petroleum derived products. This underproduction will not be offset with new technological advances due to the capital expense and personal constraints and by the simple fact that some of the recovery technology is in a "pre-innovation" stage. It is unknown how much of this new technology can reliably scale and how energy efficient it is without "real world" data.

Can I now get a cookie?

Theories don't become debased. They are proved or disproved.

You're quite wrong. Theories become more or less plausible; they never become "proved".

Newton's Laws, for example, were very well-supported and very plausible...but turned out to be wrong. Similarly, the theory that black holes exist is very well-supported and very plausible, and hence we believe that it's likely to be right, and use it as the basis for further theories.

By contrast, the theory that neutrinos have no mass has become "debased" - strong evidence says it's not correct, although there's no proof per se.

More importantly, though, "oil is peaking" isn't a theory, it's a prediction. The difference is that a theory is general - meaning the theory itself can be discredited - whereas a prediction is a statement about a future event, and hence the credit or discredit when it's shown to be right or wrong is accrued to those who made the prediction and to their methods.

Accordingly, the repeated failures of the "oil is peaking" predictions have discredited ("debased") the entire peak oil crowd, and all of their methods. That's not to say they won't be right eventually - a stopped clock is right twice a day, after all - but it does mean they'll have to work extra-hard to overcome the memory of those failed predictions.

And, bad metaphor

No, you just failed to understand it.

There was a wolf - i.e., the problem was real. By making false claims about the immediacy of the problem, however, the boy desensitized his community to the problem, and ultimately that led directly to disaster.

Of course, it's even worse in this case, since instead of crying "wolf!", the boy should simply be saying "wolves will come along eventually, so why don't we keep them out by building fences?"

Making predictions of a peak date serves very little purpose other than garnering attention, much of it negative. It's possible that attention is worthwhile, but it doesn't seem like it.

Stop being so combative

Disagreeing is not being combative. But neither, frankly, do I see any need to baby people along. Anyone whose arguments are sound should be able to defend them easily enough.