1) The prediction of peak US production was basically right on the mark. Other national predictions have been accurate too.
2) The failures of peak oil predictions have been primarily from the willingness to get to less and less accessible reserves at progressively rising monetary cost (see: dramatic increases in the price of oil) and, recently, (non-AGW) environmental and even health costs.
3) Until recently, few alternatives have been available, so whatever the consequences to getting more oil, we HAD to accept them. Electric cars were jokes. This is rapidly ceasing to be the case.
4) I am aware there are vast coal reserves. However, last I checked, no one uses coal for transportation anymore except by going through the power grid (electric trains), so I'm not sure how that actually addresses my earlier comment.
Note: I am indeed falling back from my naively phrased claim in my previous post here. However, this doesn't impact the usage in the post before that.
You are trying too hard :-) Your first point says that the predictions were correct and then the second point tries to explain the failures :-D
Re (2) and (3) peak oil people didn't claim that oil will become too expensive or inconvenient to extract -- the claim was that the oil will run out, full stop.
Re (4) we were talking about fossil fuels in general, not only about what's used for transportation. But in any case, you can convert coal and natural gas to liquid fuel. The technology is well-known.
Note: Please see this post of mine for more on the project, my sources, and potential sources for bias.
I have written a couple of blog posts on my understanding of climate forecasting, climate change, and the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis (here and here). I also laid down the sources I was using to inform myself here.
I think one question that a number of readers may have had is: given my lack of knowledge (and unwillingness to undertake extensive study) of the subject, why am I investigating it at all, rather than relying on the expert consensus, as documented by the IPCC that, even if we're not sure is correct, is still the best bet humanity has for getting things right? I intend to elaborate on the reasons for taking a closer look at the matter, while still refraining from making the study of atmospheric science a full-time goal, in a future post.
Right now, I'm curious to hear how you formed your views on climate change. In particular, I'm interested in answers to questions such as these (not necessarily answers to all of them, or even to only these questions).