I think both need to exist.

There is The Shock Model and then there is the "Layman's Guide to The Shock Model" which helps gain an understanding of what the model describes, its key assertions, its weaknesses and faults, if any. But "popularization" should not mean that you abandon your critical faculties and just churn out pablum.

Elsewhere there is a post to the effect that; 1) There are a lot of variables to life; and 2) No matter what option, or direction, is chosen there remain a lot of variables to life.

To which I can only quote Homer Simpson: "Doh!"

Yes, but if Gale poses this as an either/or question: as in, are we seeing "Peak Oil" or are we seeing "Limits to Growth"? Then we need a good set of representative models that we can run against each other. Might as well die trying.

Interesting how mention of a deep "technical analysis" gets all the financial types hyperventilating with excitement, yet the same thing applied to a deep problem such as oil depletion is met with a relative thud.

I can one up the Homer Simpson reference:

Professor Frink: [drawing on a blackboard] Here is an ordinary square....
Police Chief Wiggum: Whoa, whoa - slow down, egghead!

Well, to be brutally honest, when it comes to the Shock Model I have sort of felt myself at times to be on the Wiggum side of the classroom :-)