Hey, thanks, Jaymax. We needed this. A lot.

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

Probably.

Peak oil didn't become even remotely mainstream until prices shot up and oil supplies were obviously tight. Rapidly rising prices - especially to the psychologically-important $100/inflation-adjusted high level - would get people talking about the difficulties involved with producing oil and possible future problems with or without any particular person pushing the issue.

Has his work in bringing attention to the issue outweighed the reputation for making false predictions he's associated with it? Hard to say.

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.

What use do predictions of a particular peak date serve?

The issue is how producing oil is becoming harder and harder, and satisfying rapidly-growing demand (especially from BRIC nations) will become increasingly difficult. Predicting a particular year for when "slow increase" becomes "slow decrease" is largely irrelevant to that central issue.

I'd FAR rather be seen as a crackpot by the ignorant-to-date, and find myself prepared when the inevitable arrives

If all you care about is yourself being prepared, why bother discussing it at all?

If you care about society being prepared, then how your message is being received is of central importance.

to my mind the argument you make is just totally irrational

Then your mind is mistaken.

My argument is explicitly rational - I'm saying that the costs (credibility) and benefits (attention?) of making predictions of a particular peak date need to be taken into account to determine whether it's something we should be doing or supporting, and that evidence suggests it's more harmful than helpful. I could certainly be mistaken, of course, and I'm more than open to the possibility that such predictions are more valuable than being repeatedly wrong is harmful.

Mostly, I'd just like to see some more people doing that kind of evaluation of what is useful behaviour. If you believe certain behaviour - such as predicting peak dates - is useful, you should be able to explain why it's useful and why its drawbacks are worth it, just as you should be able to explain the strengths and weaknesses of any argument you support.

Disavowal.

I think that's silly. ASPO, Simmons, Deffeyes, etc., are the ones getting the press, not us. They can disavow us. We can't disavow them. It sure won't "muzzle" them.

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.

We've done that. I don't think it's really useful. People don't care, and it just comes across like 20-20 hindsight.

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.

I could not disagree more. Like Tom Whipple said - nobody cares unless you can give them a date. The first thing they ask him on Capitol Hill when he talks about peak oil is "When?"