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)

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

Don't forget that the boy who cried wolf was eventually right, and the entire town suffered for it. I have never been sure of the moral of that story-- did the townspeople mess up by not responding because they thought that the effort of running to the field twenty times outwieghed the damage to the flock? Of course not. The townspeople fell prey to the same base human flaws that the shepard did. The mature townspeople should have appointed at least a committee to run out each time, or hired a better shepard.

Those who do not read fairy tales are condemned to relive them, said the princess late one sleepless night, while searching for the pea.

It's all very reinterpreting the analogy to your own ends, but:

The moral is stated at the end of the fable as:

"Even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed. The liar will lie once, twice, and then perish when he tells the truth."

IOW, do not raise false alarms, as you will lose credibility. Therefore this analogy applies exactly.

This is exactly what some PO adherents have done, and now the WSJ says they have lost credibility. Some surprise, huh?

Anyway, the horse has already bolted. Now that the WSJ are on board with the idea of a plateau, work with them. Get them to ask where future supplies will come from and how much they will cost. Point out that developing alternative energy sources may be a business opportunity.

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.

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.

Your argument is only rational if you manage to twist historical reality to an absurd degree in order to make it so... You're 'probably' comment re Colin Campbell seems ludicrously false beyond my comprehension.

We are unlikely to come to any agreement on this.

To answer your challenge: Peak oil going mainstream has a solid pre-prepared resource, including the likes of TOD, which only exists BECAUSE of individuals who wern't afraid to make predictions which turned out to be wrong in detail, but who's basis for those predictions was shown to be mostly robust under analysis.

The downside to society from those predictions is virtually non-existent, the benefits have given us several years advance preparation for society. But you will refuse to see that historical reality; why I'm not sure.

You should be able to explain what would be different had those predictions NOT been made - perhaps you think that society would give 'us' more credit, would be 'buying into' peak-oil theory more readily; but 'us' would not even exist, and the Saudi pronouncements on 'peak-oil' would be going unchallenged.
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)