To Peak or Not To Peak, That Is the Question: Peak Oil Hubbub in the NY Times

So I’m reading the NY Times this morning and encounter a head-in-the-sand scolding the notion of Peak Oil here: www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/opinion/25lynch.html
I’ve read much about this idea and some of it includes (hopefully) laughable doomsday scenarios, and some of it seems quite rational and worrisome, particularly Matthew Simmons’ excellent book, “Twilight in the Desert,” about the mysterious state of the Saudi oil industry. In a nutshell, the Saudis have historically one of the greatest supergiant (industry term) oil fields, which may be declining. Aramco, their oil company, keeps their information secret, so we don’t really know. Simmons is honest about this. He notes we still have plenty of oil, and make new discoveries all the time, but makes the logical statement that, from what we know, we do probably face the likelihood of declines in production during this century. He doesn’t predict the next Mad Max replay, but he does say it’s logical to face the fact that at some point, perhaps in the not-too-distant future, we will want to use more than we have, which will affect price, and global geopolitical stability. 
Lynch discounts that altogether, and moreover, makes not one mention of climate change. E.O. Wilson, the eminent science writer, makes the simple statement that if we burn all the oil we have underground, the planet will be uninhabitable. I imagine Lynch would discount that notion as well, and go shoot some birds with Dick Cheney. But you can’t talk about how much oil we have and use without realizing how it affects climate change.
Actually, perhaps Lynch’s vision of the future could be summed up by the film “Wall-E,” with its rusting tankers drydocked in a dead planet.