bubmachine wrote:If Heinberg wants to live in a tent by a field with only a dog on a string and an acoustic guitar, that is up to him. but I don't think the rest of us would be happy with that.
Heinberg doesn't want to do that. Why make up stuff like that? It just weakens your argument. However, your made up idea of what Heinberg wants and what the rest of the world illustrates a point that many don't seem to get. It doesn't really matter what you want if it is unachievable. I'm sure that most people in the developed world want life to more or less go on as it is now. If you believe that is likely, I don't think you've thought much about it.
When peak occurs is not terribly important, unless we can pin it down precisely. If you really think peak will occur a hundred years from now, then you may not be worried about it. However, it could occur tomorrow. Ask yourself if it's better to act like it will occur tomorrow or better to act like it is in a hundred years, if either is possible.
Some believe that other technologies will come to the rescue but that presupposes that human ingenuity is infinite (i.e. able to solve
any problem). If you really believe that, then don't worry about peak.
Some believe that a lowering of demand, perhaps coupled with new technology, will allow a smooth landing or even no substantial problem. If you believe that, then there is no need to worry.
I think Deffeyes was referring to conventional oil, when calculating the peak.
Hubbert's name is Hubbert, not Hubbard. I think this is a common mistake for those who've restricted their consideration of the issue to the most optimistic views (since I've seen many optimistic articles that also get his name wrong).
Evolution is a theory that has made prediction (for example, about mutation rates), which have checked out. It is, so far, not dubious at all.