... but otherwise he looks like just another clueless chicken little.

Wait a minute.
This sounds like a huge double standard.
How come you are not out here taking Steve Forbes (Captain Capitalism) on for guranteeing a year ago in his front page editorial of Forbes Magazine that oil would be down below $35 by now and arguing all who are crying "beware" are chicken littles who do not understand the fundamentals of commodities ... that their prices always goes down?

Oil: $35 or $105? Part 1
The other day I posted a link to an article that was sent to me in which the financial publisher and previous presidential candidate Steve Forbes called the energy markets a bubble and said that oil would be going to $35 a barrel inside of a year. That figure is in sharp contrast to the Goldman Sachs $105 super spike scenario.

Who's right? ...
In the Forbes case, it's very likely that the call was politically motivated. If prices fall he's a hero. If prices don't fall, well then at least he tried to help the people. I don't have such a problem with that because if he were able to influence prices to the downside that would be good for the majority of people except likely Goldman Sachs and numerous hedge funds and their investors.

Overzealous opportunists and office seekers aside what then is the truth of oil prices?

from:
http://www.blogginwallstreet.com/2005_09_01_blogginwallstreet_archive.html

See also:
http://greens.org.au/mediacentre/mediareleases/senatornettle/010905a/view?searchterm=kerry%20forbes

P.S. ... and yes, oil is "down" to $60 today, but get real, 60=/=35 !!!!

In Summary:

How come Steve Forbes gets the Smirking Happy Chimp award for being the messenger of Happy Days Acoming?

And Matt Simmons gets the boot for being a realistic pessimist?

Is it because of our irrational human nature?

Is that the whole basis of our "rational" thunking?