Peak Oil and wacko Luddite socialists

This may not make much sense yet because there's a lot of b/g I don't yet have time to fill in. But I thought it would be better to get something down before I forgot about it, so here goes:

I stumbled onto M.K. Hubbert's work ("oil production must eventually peak") around 1990, and went through the thought process most people probably experience on encountering this: The theory/forecast first seems far-fetched, then scary, but that curve he uses is so symmetric that it can't possibly be accurate... (et cetera). But after you go through his reasoning and data, his conclusions start to look pretty compelling.

So I've been 'comfortable' with the idea of an oil peak (as comfortable as one can be with such a prospect) for, oh, 17 years or so. In 2002 I posted a primer on the topic, http://members.cox.net/prtdesign/oil.html

Recently I happened across another Peak Oil website (theoildrum.com), and was impressed with the quality of the discussion, analysis and range of ideas for how we can cope far more expensive oil (an event often referred to as The End of Life As We Know It (TEOLAWKI)). But in checking out the comments and links on that site, something that struck me as odd:

As far as I can tell, fully half of the folks who accept the idea of peak-oil seem to be wacko Bush-haters. I mean the full-on, tinfoil-hat-wearing types who say they believe the U.S. government blew up the World Trade Center.

I'll post some links later and let readers draw their own conclusions. In any case, here's the point:

Understandably (and obviously), many people capable of rational analysis find the concept of Peak Oil extremely unsettling. Then after a period of adjustment, rational folks move on to the "Okay, now what can we do to adjust?" mode. In this vein one of the first (and again, obvious) conclusions is that because of the immense size of the systems involved, acting earlier to ease the transition is better than delaying action. (With the obvious caveat that one doesn't want to waste money/effort in misguided efforts.)

My concern is that prevalence of Bush-hating, war-is-never-the-answer, Loose-Change nuts in the Peak Oil camp will discredit the entire subject-- and thus will make it virtually impossible to implement any effective palliative measures.

Moreover, my impression is that effective solutions to *technical problems* are rarely authored by marketing majors or sociology majors. Rather, solving technical problems takes some actual tech/engineering competence. And it seems to me that *most* folks with a tech/engineering background tend to be somewhat conservative. So if the PO camp becomes dominated by "progressivist" Bush-haters, I think we'll have a *far* harder time devising and implementing effective solutions, since the wackos will regard the engineering types as neocon plants, while the engineers will be reluctant to join forces with people who not only seem to be lunatic-fringers, but seem to regard any engineering proposal more complex than the wheel as the devil's work.

Ironically, I think this "human relations" problem may turn out to be as big an obstacle to making a better post-Peak transition (aka "LATOC"--life after the oil crash, as they call it) as the technical issues themselves. (Okay, a little hyperbole there.)

If you understand the point I just made, please contact me and let's spin some ideas.