One of the interesting facets about the peak oil debate is the nature of the many believers in peak oil.  The article that moved the debate into the public view appeared in Scientific American (1998) and included an old photo of M. King Hubbert at a blackboard.  Very scientific.  And the authors, Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere, are geologists, a hard science (ignoring the views of Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory).

And Campbell himself created the myth that the debate was between geologists and economists, making it seem as if doubters were denialists, to use the current term, or anti-science.  (He also once said my lack of experience in the oil industry made my opinions of no value, which makes his decision to turn over the Association for the Study of Peak Oil to an academic physicist.)  But this argument gradually faded, as it became clear that most petroleum geologists did not support the concept.

Indeed, most of the writing has come from generalists, or at least people unfamiliar with the field.  Granted some, like Walter Youngquist, Richard Duncan and Robert Hirsch are petroleum geologists or engineers, and Kenneth Deffeyes is a professor emeritus of geology at Princeton.   But others, such as David Goodstein (physicist) and Richard Heinberg (writer) have not particular expertise regarding oil.  And don't get me started on Michael Ruppert, the retired police officer.

Crucially, most geologists are not familiar with statistical modeling, which has been the primary method supporting claims of an imminent peak (not science).  Few if any are familiar with supply modeling history or theory, and they often make technical mistakes as a result.  Their embrace of the Hubbert curve as a scientific model has proven an embarrassment, especially since novices still see older publications and don't realize it has been refuted.

And Matthew Simmons book, "Twilight in the Desert" about Saudi oil was full of technical mistakes, yet was enthusiastically embraced by the peak oil community.  Similarly, many still point to the supposed peak in crude plus condensate production, excluding other liquids, which the industry never does.  As one said to me, "you don't use NGLs to power an automobile".  Of course, you don't use crude, either.  It all goes to refineries, including large amounts of NGLs, which generate usable products.

In many ways, this is reminiscent of the debate over vaccines and autism, where so much of the support comes from people with no medical or scientific background, but much fervor.