All futuristic predictions don't contain much weight. According to Popper, predictions of the future cannot be made be we cannot predict what new information will arise that will shape the future.

People thought the dow would hit 50k. Ahh.. the good ol' times.

The most devastating critique included the claim that he reached his sensational figure by double counting some part of the information available.

But wild fictional guessing books are to the publishing world much like books on miracle diets. Lots of people want to become megarich, protect themselves from the predicted next major financial collapse, and be skinny; books will always arrive to absorb their dollars due to ideas that require than no more than five pages of type to explain with adequate clarity and depth. Must be a goldmine.

The problem with predicting the future is that everybody has been wrong. It was said that countries such as China and Japan could never embrace capitalism because of their societies were based on Confucianism and therefore too collectivist, they didn't have the Protestant work ethic that allowed American and Western European economies to prosper. Now, its the West who is in trouble and SE Asia is growing.. Its been argued that China can't become the next superpower because of its authoritarian political system, after the debt ceiling debacle and the Eurozone's political paralysis will this be the next failed prediction?

Paragraph one of the sub topic Peak oil of this article has this passage: " In 1956, geophysicist M. King Hubbert developed a model -- now known as Hubbert's peak -- predicting that global oil production would tap out in the early 1970s. It didn't quite work that way."

Are you guys kidding me? Or don't you know anything about Hubbert's work? He DID NOT say that GLOBAL oil production would peak in the early 70s. He said that American oil production would peak around that time period,and that's exactly what happened.Th whole paradigm of Hubbert's Peak was about Peak oil for any geographical area,i.e America in this case.

Here's from Wikipedia:
"Hubbert, in his 1956 paper,[3] presented two scenarios for US conventional oil production (crude oil + condensate):
most likely estimate: a logistic curve with a logistic growth rate equal to 6%, an ultimate resource equal to 150 Giga-barrels (Gb) and a peak in 1965.
upper-bound estimate: a logistic curve with a logistic growth rate equal to 6% and ultimate resource equal to 200 Giga-barrels and a peak in 1970.
Hubbert's upper-bound estimate, which he regarded as optimistic, accurately predicted that US oil production would peak in 1970. Forty years later, the upper-bound estimate has also proven to be very accurate in terms of cumulative production, less so in terms of annual production. For 2005, the upper-bound Hubbert model predicts 178.2 Gb cumulative and 1.17 Gb current production; actual US production was 176.4 Gb cumulative crude oil + condensate (1% lower than the upper bound estimate), with annual production of 1.55 Gb (32% higher than the upper bound estimate).
A post-hoc analysis of peaked oil wells, fields, regions and nations found that Hubbert's model was the "most widely useful"(providing the best fit to the data), though many areas studied had a sharper "peak" than predicted.[8]

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory#Reliability

The peer reviewed scientific paper form which the above text is copied to Wikipedia:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421506004265

I demand a swift retraction for this glaring error. You don't like Peak oil theory,fine.But that doesn't give you the right to lie upon it.

Regards,
ElSaltador

"improvements in crop yields and human health have prevented his dire predictions from coming to pass"

"It's certainly true that there's a finite amount of oil in the world and it's going to run out sooner or later."

I continue to be amazed by the incredibly short-sightedness of people who say, "No catastrophe yet, so your premise must have been wrong"

Disasters tend to be a life-style choice by society that catches up to you one day. I have yet to see a choice made for sustainability. :P

The race between technology and disaster is still too close to call but I have my bet on disaster to 'Show'.

The peak oil concept continues to be highly politicized for a number of reasons. Perhaps there's concern that individuals will panic when the truth of oil supply is famous. Go ahead and take US EIA 2010 Annual Energy Outlook. The outlook shows oil supplies tapering off as oil can be used up within the future years. This really is reasonable. However, the outlook also shows a maximum curve according to "unidentified projects". The origin of the oil isn't clear, it's not your typical oil. It's a large amount. Celebrate your reader either comfortable of skeptical.