> I guess what I'm always left with about this issue is: so what? You
> might as well be saying: smart scientists predict that the portion of US
> land used for food production is going to peak sometime in 1927, and
> then inexorable decline.
>
> You'd be right, but it doesn't imply that we're going to starve.
False analogy. If smart scientists had empirically verified models that predicted the amount of food produced (not land used!) would peak in 1927 and decline thereafter, that would be analogous to Hubbert's peak. I'm puzzled that you're nonchalant about this, given increasing worldwide oil demand and virtually no interest in the U. S. for reducing our oil consumption.
Miles