> Good point. I may also add that knowledge and the
> public perception of what "is known" often do not go
> in tandem. The latter is and exercise in cherry
> picking. The public (mainly thrugh its opinion
> leaders) selectively focuses on rather narrow aspects
> of scientific research and focuses on those that fit a
> particular collective mood. The public version of
> thaose thoeries may do away with aall thier
> subtleties, caveats and scope conditons and
> disseminate a simplistic or even propagandistic
> version. "Social Darwinism" is a good example.
But it doesn't seem to have been large on the radar of geologists either until recently. I could be totally off base with this. There was a National Geographic article on oil shortly before the '73 shock that had a two-page graphic with the Hubbert peak around 2000. The downturn in consumption from the shock, plus later discoveries particularly in the North Sea are supposed to have pushed it out later. I think I first heard of it sometime around 1998, when Colin Campbell had an aritcle in Scientific American. At the time the magazine tended to not print feature articles on iffy subjects.
I'm not so sure it makes sense to talk about the accuracy of the prediction except in hindsight.
-- Andy