The "We can have our cake and eat it, too"
arguement.

Ain't gonna happen. Here's why.

The nut cutting points:

The US is 5% of the World's pop., using 25% of the HC's,
and borrowing 75% of the cost.

Next, the World is putting 8 Giga Tonnes of CO2 into the
Atmosphere per annum.  Even BP's Browne admits that 7 of those Gt
must be eliminated from yearly output.. But Browne's target to reach, even if he does,
will not stop runaway CO2.

See "Climate Change" quote below.

"It's like saying to a person, `You've got to become an argon breather tomorrow because we're switching away from this oxygen stuff,'" (Julian)Darley said.

And since Kuwait has slashed their reserves in 1/2( and you can slash 300 Billion bbls off Bp's Ultimate World Output because Iraq, Venezuela, Iran, Dubai, Abu Dhabi and later Saudi Arabia then did the same thing),  we have that much less time to fulfill Lovin's fantasy.

How much time?  The Amazon will cease being a Carbon sink in 15
years.  

A further cause for worry is the scientific uncertainty over the "climate sensitivity"of the
model which runs the emissions scenario. The climate sensitivity is a measure of the
temperature rise in a modelling system for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, once the
climnate has reached equilibrium, i.e. In hundreds of years. It takes no account of non-linear
or catastrophic climate changes which could be triggered at certain temperature or
precipitation thresholds, but gives a useful measure to compare models over the narrow
range of CO2 concentrations and temperature rises which we are concerned with in avoiding
dangerous climate change.

In other words-we're in a best guess scenario.

I say the Amazon is stressing now.

The emissions reductions required for energy-intensive developed countries, such as the UK,
will be around 90% on current levels, and will need to be achieved by 2030.
These targets appear challenging, but give an indication of the timescale and scale of
reductions required. Ongoing research on climate sensitivity and positive feedbacks in the
carbon cycle may indicate that a lower ceiling on temperature rise may be necessary to stop
irreversible damage to global ecosystems, implying a lower target concentration of
atmospheric CO2, and on a shorter timescale.
Colin Forrest 6/04/05, revised 14/04/05
The Cutting Edge: Climate science to April 05

So there you have it. We, the World, are caught between running out
of oil, or climate change, in less than 20 years, and we're making zero progress on both fronts.  In fact, if we follow the reasoning of
F. William Engdahl-

If this analysis is accurate, the economic and social consequences will be staggering. This reality is being hidden from general discussion by the oil multinationals and major government agencies, above all by the United States government. Oil companies have a vested interest in hiding the truth in order to keep the price of getting new oil as low as possible. The US government has a strategic interest in keeping the rest of the world from realising how critical the problem has become.

When we, the West, attack Iran,  our hand will be shown to the World.  And, at the same time, we will show, without doubt how we,
the US, intend to resolve both the oil depletion and climate change problem.

Which will mean accelleration of both scenarios.

As Lovelock said

...[C]limate specialists see [the Earth] as seriously ill, and soon to pass into a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years. I have to tell you, as members of the Earth's family and an intimate part of it, that you and especially civilisation are in grave danger.

Our planet has kept itself healthy and fit for life, just like an animal does, for most of the more than three billion years of its existence. It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences...

...We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable. [...]

I agree that little of significance is being done about global warming and peak oil (which most aren't even aware of).  But there are some nonsensical assertions by Lovelock and others that undermine their cause.  The 100,000 year figure is pulled out of thin air, CO2 residence time in the atmosphere is a few centuries not millenia.  Climate models are fully nonlinear.  They cannot resolve the microphysics of clouds since there are not and will not be any time soon computers that can handle the resolution (grid or spectral) that is required (e.g. covering the atmosphere with a 10 micron mesh, or about 4 x 10^34 grid points).  

The fact that cloud processes have to be parameterized in models with 100 km horizontal resolution is a favorite "achilees heel" of the global warming denialists but at least the parameterizations are physically based with a lot of research behind them and do capture the bulk behaviour of clouds.  Current models predict that a doubling of CO2 increases tropospheric humidity by about 50%.  We are not looking at unlivable conditions everywhere but the poles.  This is not to say things will be hunky dory but gigadeath claims based on direct global warming effects are absurd.  If the claims are based on diseases then there is nothing particularly special about global warming as population density and poor sanitary conditions (e.g. SARS, bird flu) are going to happen regardless.

Right.

The problem comes when scientists begin to quantify/qualify their
errors.

And then find that errors dismissed should have been Chaos
Theory and the Power Laws considered.

I then turn to The Gaussian Curve.  As it has now been
accepted by the Oil Drum Community as valid (Especially since
it affirmed that Kuwait, SA, the UAE, and Iraq were falsely claiming
300 Giga bbls), the same Gaussian Bell Curve shows that
the human population is about to undergo a severe contraction.

Meaning that, at the very least, human pop stabilization will occur
within 5 years.  Think of the implications.

325,000 daily growth in people will be removed every day.

Sometime within the next 5 years.  just from stabilizaton.

James