I predict you will soon have a new screen name.

Look, I've been on this website long enough to know that answering to this kind of negative comments is a complete waste of my time.

I stand by what I said and my confidence intervals do represent where 95% of listed peak oil forecasts are seeing future crude oil + NGL supply, nothing more.

I also strongly suggest that you open a blog yourself (it's free: http://www.blogger.com/) and share with us your vast knowledge of Statistics. You can already count me as a frequent commentator :).

Asebius? Nice moniker. Why don't we just shorten the phonetics a little and call a spade a spade or let an ass be an ass, as the case may be.

You provide zero objective information on your own while you flame professional contributors.

The task of timing the peak, exactly, may well be beyond anyone. If Deffreyes missed it by a few hundred thousand barrels per day, then he missed it. But it doesn't really change the fact that peak oil is still coming out in the wash and that Khebab, Deffreyes, and others, have been far more accurate in predicting world oil production than known energy optimists -- CERA et all.

The price of oil alone is an indicator how dear and scarce supplies have become -- even in an age of undulating plateau.

The problem, in general, is not enough people are aware of the kind of analysis going on here and far too many people are happy to gobble up the kind of obsfucation you blow out. But like any other cloud of smoke, it will all too soon dissipate.

The casualty, for your kind of disinformation, are those poor souls who were disoriented by it and failed to prepare or respond adequately.

Assbeass, like other worm-tongues before you, are henceforth banished...

Asebius,
I dispatched that particular commenter quite easily. He essentially didn't know what he was talking about. Khebab's model results are perfectly valid. A model itself is a best guess estimate, much different than purely statistics-driven bootstraps.

This is what I said at the time, and if you don't like it, try to argue it now, I noticed you did not back then:

The no-name Name does not understand that some sort of model underlies all of these curves. For the "election polling" analogy Name brings up, no human behavioral model exists and yes indeed the projections are bootstrapped from a smaller subset and one can only use pure statistics to project error margins.

I find confidence intervals like Khebab presented perfectly valid. The "truth" about a situation may indeed converge with more and more physical behavioral models applied from sources of various breadths of knowledge.