2. These debates are about numbers, specifically the rate of oil production

To paraphrase something Chris Nelder said a long time ago in response to a nonsense-filled article by David Blackmon - Peak Oil discussions are discussions about data. Or as I'd say it - you can tell a lot about an article by quickly scanning it to check how many numbers are present, specifically numbers that measure the actual metric of Peak Oil, global rate of oil production (usually expressed in million barrels per day). Because if they're not actually talking about the metric we use to measure Peak Oil, what exactly are they talking about? How does one criticize the idea of Peak Oil without actually talking about Peak Oil?

3. Look forward, not backward - the Peak Oil Debate is about future projections not past predictions

Yet another topic I covered a bit in "In Search of Oil Realism." If the author starts going into long sweeping histories of "things people said that turned out to be wrong" - you can be sure that the author is building their arguments for a strawman case they would rather fight. The debate here is about the future of oil production. This isn't a debate about predictions being hard and the fact that predictions are usually wrong. And the distinction there is important.

On one hand, Peak Oil critics are always ready to list a long record of pessimistic predictions and statements that didn't come true. They rarely, if ever, mention that these predictions didn't exist in a vacuum. They were opposed by optimistic predictions that missed the mark just as widely.

But again, the further you go back in time, the more likely you're going to find someone making an inaccurate prediction, on both sides. That's why modern energy debates should live in modern times. What someone said about energy even five years ago has very little relevance to the issues of today. Peak Oil thought didn't just end with Hubbert or Campbell or Laherrère, it continues to this day, shaped by new information, new circumstances, and new analysts. Nothing stands still in energy, we must constantly seek to update our thinking.

It's easy to quote a laundry list of failed predictions to try to paint a picture where the boy who cried wolf is never ever eaten by the wolf. It's tougher to tie past predictions with the new updated thinking of today and explain a position going forward.

Past all of the noise, the Peak Oil Debate is a discussion about the future of oil production, and those that hold an optimistic position own the burden of explaining how global oil production can continue to increase in the decades to come, or at worst, avoid decline. It's not good enough to just assume production growth continues because it always has before. That means explaining how conventional oil production will escape its years of declines, or how the U.S. shale oil boom will continue to increase in the years to come, or how/if global shale oil will follow the U.S. template. Or perhaps they will take the position that Peak Oil is real, and near, but that changes in global demand and the increased adoption of natural gas, renewables, and efficiency will somehow make Peak Oil a non-issue.

But you have to actually MAKE the arguments for those positions. Most critics don't.