Daniel,
Thank you for your views.
I think you’re being a little over simplistic in your criticism.
For a ‘scientific’ theory to be valid it must be objective, measurable, predictable and repeatable. Sadly economics is one of those disciplines that don’t often meet those criteria. e.g. There has been a history of mass failures in economics.
I suspect that the flaw in both economics and weather dynamics are currently too complex for our current level of technology/science to be able to deal with sufficient rigor.

Extending your example you with a PhD in Modern art Sculpture (without a degree in meteorology) be at a disadvantage debating the merits of global climate dynamics if all you have to offer is ; hearsay, anecdotal or selective evidence.
Experience teaches me that many disciplines are so complex as to give a specialist in their area of expertise an advantage.

NB I did not say I would dismiss them out of hand. They need to prove their credibility in the topic under discussion. The same as anyone else.

I do tend to hold Authors to a higher standard of credibility/proof than those who profess no particular expertise (posters).
I have a conviction that if you argue a point through an article you are claiming that increased credibility.
I hope that help

I agree with the basic thrust of the paper, which is about EROI and net energy analysis (NEA)- of course the Earth is not infinite, although most economists use marginal costing analysis- which amounts to the same assumption. Very little fundamental work has been done on NEA since the 1970s, so any recent assertions need to be treated accordingly. One group that has done some very solid work- on nuclear power and uranium supplies is Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen http://www.stormsmith.nl/. I have submitted a paper to Online Opinion on NEA- which sets out the situation in summary. A longer paper is available from me jedbarker@iinet.net.au.

The Magic Pudding is similar to the idea of infinite resources ... there will always be some left no matter how much we use.
First you have to define what you mean by a "resource".
e.g., a resouce is something useful to man.
If something is not useful to man then it is not a resource .. forget it.
Therefore: Resource = (entity) X (technology)

The entity may be the absolute total amount of oil on the planet Earth, which is finite. Technology, however, depends on man's intelligence, which is his brain power. There is no reason to believe than man's brainpower is finite. If our brainpower is infinite then so too is the resource.

With your Magic Pudding idea maybe you have underestimated man's intelligence to invent new technologies?