From my perspective, their fault resides in not quantifying the uncertainty of what they claim to "know".
I agree with you on that.
Not incorrect. Uninformed. Ignorant. A GIVEN when you can't be bothered to do the research.
Charles Hall was aware that there were more discoveries that he hadn't included in his calculations, and did mention that on his paper. He chose to put it in as an additional note, rather than redo the whole graph.
You aren't suggesting that ANY physical process or economic calculation does so without taking it into account are you?
No, I'm just saying that I'm not clear at all about what "doing so" is. I imagine economic calculations "do so" for some people, though I don't think they do it for me (but I suppose I could be looking at this the wrong way, or at least, the wrong way from the perspective of most people, or at least people trained in modern Western economics). I have no clear idea at all about what economic calculations may be doing for most people. I studied maths, therefore I can be pretty good at missing stuff about numbers.
But the behavior parts of economics can also work when it comes to foraging, although there isn't much complexity involved when the demand for a thing can be satisfied by walking outside and grabbing it off a tree.
The issue isn't complexity, the issue is that the value of an apple is vastly different depending on how hungry you are. If you are really hungry, one apple is just not enough. The amount of apples is also relevant, but only up to a point. If there are more apples than you can eat before they go off, the amount of extra apples is irrelevant.
If you start trading apples with other people, since they're all human, they'll all find apples of similar nutritional value, and though they may have personal preferences in terms of food, if they're hungry enough, they'll only care about the nutritional value. Since everybody can agree on the similar value of apples and that it's highly desirable for everybody to have as many apples as they're likely to need, they'll work so as to make sure that they plant sufficient orchards for their need. So when they trade apples, the price of apples should remain comfortably low, barring bad crops of apples, because apples are valuable to all.
On the other hand, some things are valuable only to some people, or even merely as status symbols. If these things are difficult to produce, their prices will be high. Luxury items will be the most expensive precisely because very few people actually require that precise status symbol, and those people in all likelihood could do with another different one, or could be substituted by people who are less fussy about their status symbols.
Depends on which ideas you are talking about. Compared to a multi-disciplinary integrated stochastic system they are as useful as using a spoon to build a skyscraper.
Peak oil seemed pretty close to a multi-disciplinary integrated stochastic system to me.
There is only one later prediction of peak oil left that hasn't been discredited by reality. The EIA one for about 2037. Otherwise all the contemporaenous ones I know of by the passing of the first 4 claimed peaks oils of this century are toast.
The "Global Oil Depletion Report" by UKERC argued for peak oil before 2020, and since the recent peak was in 2018, it looks so far like it could be correct.