facts:
1) is indeed set to double by the end of the century
2) does lead to a greenhouse effect.
If you're arguing against global warming, you need to argue that the warming will be relatively minor, or at least not catastrophic. And furthermore that the benefits will outweigh the cost.
That really is the parameters of the debate.
One of the big weaknesses in the pro-global warming side is the fact that is a rather weak greenhouse gas on it's own, and thus the effect of extra needs various multiplier effects to make it really devastating. So for example, extra leads to more water vapor (a much stronger greenhouse gas), which leads to melting of ice sheets, which releases even more , which feeds back on itself yet again. This would be a catastrophic scenario, and it is indeed possible. However there are also negative feedbacks which blunt the effect of warming.
So it's a debate over feedbacks, future technologies, cost/benefit....etc.
In my opinion, it's rather insane to forcibly limit energy consumption by the industrial economy. Living standards have been drastically raised, nutrition improved, technological advancements achieved, all because of this industrial economy. Shutting it off would be.....insane. If you are passionate about reducing , the best way is through innovation and new technologies. Which is something we are counting on anyway (the oil won't last forever). Although we are emitting a lot of right now, it is concievable that we can reverse all that once we get a different, more sustainable energy source. But we need to get there first
