angry grumbles and HL

Predicting the Past: The Hubbert Linearization Robert Rapier
...
It is invalid to use three decades of hindsight for refining the Texas forecast, because we clearly don't have the same option with Saudi Arabia. Yet some argue that the Saudi peak can be forecast with confidence using the knowledge obtained from the case of Texas – a region in which the uncertainty of the method spanned almost 3 decades.
So, the HL has shown that it is good at forecasting the past, but can be very unreliable for predicting the future. In Part II, we will examine the evolution of the Saudi HL over time.

This is a line of reasoning that Mobjectivist has been tracing for years, although unfortunately Robert Rapier, posting on The Oil Drum, did not see fit to reference his work.

Already in a bit of a twist, I then read a few insufferable responses from Stuart Staniford. Below is my response, cross-posted to the Oil Drum article referenced.

Per claim in the Stuart quote, Rapier is NOT the discoverer of the inadequacy of Stuart's favored model.

Reading this thread, I also note that Robert Rapier fails to acknowledge the modeling contributions and similar objections of Mobjectivist (Web Hubble Telescope), a materials scientist who has been visible, active and rational in the small but growing peak oil community since May of 2004.

I'm more than scornful and less than impressed.

I've watched these threads before, as Stuart slavishly and continuously posts on a flawed technique, (One which big oil apologist Michael Lynch accurately describes as "curve fitting").

The atmosphere is so chilly towards Mobjectivist when he flatly debunks the linearization model, as he has done for well over a year, that some posters on these threads have grown confused and attacked him as if he were in opposition to the central thesis of peak oil - that is, individual reservoirs predictably deplete.

Sorry, no.

Rapier says, "Testing the model is called “validation”, or sometimes “back-casting.”"

Mobjectivist does this all the time, with multiple models. He has posted source code and equations over at his blog.

Robert Rapier, your references are incomplete if you do not acknowledge the ongoing work that Mobjectivist has done in this space.

Peak oil is something everyone has an opinion about, but at the core exists solid, empirical science. Science does not exclude ideas that are transparent and reproducible. Hubbert might agree, but it is time to stop appealing to his authority, for he is long dead.

I expect more rigor and honesty out of the subset of people in the peak oil community who have degrees which include the words "science" on them.

What are we, a cargo cult science? Hope not.

(Stuart Staniford) "I just want to add my support to Robert's great post. I agree that the key to understanding any prediction methodology is it's out-of-sample performance (...)
At any rate, I propose that we christen this phenomenon "Rapier Tail Creep" in honor of its discoverer :-)"