Bob, you dodged my question. I would like to know "If the impact really is 1/10,000th of a degree per year, would it change your opinion at all?" Your comment "I won't know it until I see it" is a copout. In what context is this a signficant number for you? Do you want to spend your time working on something that might eventually reduce temperatures by a thousandth of a degree, or something that could add several degrees to the global temperature? I think your mind is made up even though you haven't look at the actual numbers, and therefore this argument is just a waste of time. But you can see from that paper you linked they show climate impacts per barrel of oil. So if you really wanted to, you could just do that calculation yourself. But you really don't want to, do you?
"KXL is a current U.S. policy issue involving a project which "would almost certainly be incompatible with doing a globally equal share...in keeping warming below 2°C"."
Numbers, Bob. Your lifestyle "would almost certainly be incompatible with doing a globally equal share." But what is your ultimate impact on the temperature? There isn't a measurable one. It's the same with KXL. There isn't one. If you think there is, I challenge to produce something different than the number I have given. Show some math. Fuzzy arguments are no good, because those fuzzy arguments are just as relevant to your personal fossil fuel consumption. If every little bit counts, you are a hypocrite. If it doesn't, then you are close to understanding why KXL isn't a big deal.
"In evaluating the future impact of KXL, your attempt to include all prior Industrial Revolution carbon emissions is duly noted"
It's a temperature impact. You can't try to scale the annual impact of KXL on the expected global temperature change unless you are factoring in all the emissions leading to that global change. That's why your math is invalid. The temperature change we are experiencing contains a lot of inventory already up there, so you can't say KXL is 1/1000th of the impact. It is not a logical argument.
"And the graph you reference is a deceptive one - it assumes consumption of every ounce of coal, and every cubic foot of natural gas."
Deceptive? It just shows the relative threats of the resources, including ALL of the oil. It's also from the same source you used, but there they actually did the math. Showed the numbers. Did you find the oil sands reserves? That tiny red line at the end of the unconventional oil resource line. And KXL is a tiny fraction of that. So there's your threat. No matter how you slice it, coal absolutely DWARFS any contribution from oil. Compare reserves to reserves, or resources to resources. Doesn't matter.
"Do you really believe there will be people around to burn coal when the planet's average temperature is 64°F hotter than it is now, or that we should be taking every step possible to prevent getting close to that point?"
Can you see the relative threats? Coal is a FAR greater threat. Do you see it getting FAR greater attention? I don't, because people are getting the wrong message about KXL's importance.
"And I'm still driving because my car doesn't use oil, tar sands or not (maybe a few drops)."
Then I conclude that you don't have a car. Because cars are made with oil, transported with oil, and if it's electric in many places it's transported with coal. You must also not fly, because there's no getting away from oil there. Do you use a plastic toothbrush? Aspirin? A computer? Vitamins? Deodorant? Paint? Plastics? You are surrounded by oil. People who try to take an accounting of the oil in their lives are often shocked to find out just how much there is. There's 2 gallons of oil embedded in each iPhone. The point is that people grossly underestimate their oil consumption, and it's a lot easier to replace coal than it is to replace oil.
One final thought. Look at that graph again. Eliminate oil consumption, and coal consumption will still do us in. Eliminate coal consumption, and oil consumption isn't much of a climate threat.