One commenter said “this is an ideological/political driven agenda” - I could not agree more.
I wasn’t sure who Cliff Ollier was until the first few pages of a web search returned his “status” - then it all made sense. Along with a few other well trod names exhorted with monotonous regularity by so called ‘climate change sceptics’, Cliff Ollier crops up time and time again in the blogosphere.

Of course, he is aided and abetted by the same worn out 'players' (retired geologists or not) playing the same old song song. Nevertheless, these players in this ideological game still hold influence with the mining industry lobby groups, here in Australia and overseas.

A scroll down the Lavoisier Group’s author and subject list http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-change-by-subject.php reveals not only Cliff Ollier, but the usual suspects.

Ollier also crops up at the Australian Climate Science Coalition http://www.auscsc.org.au/about_us.html

What I didn't expect (but am nevertheless unsurprised) is that the OLO commenter going by the name 'Don Aitken' heads a list by the “Australian League of Rights”

http://www.alor.org/Britain/Attempts%20to%20Change%20Climare%20are%20Futile.htm

This list also holds place within the Lavoisier Group too, although they add the Pope to their list of dignitaries. Yes, this is an ideological driven agenda directed by neo-conservative ‘right-wing’ think tanks and supported underneath by the 'tea-party' mindset.

As far the article goes, you will find that the vast majority of scientists involved in studying climate change do not suggest or invoke a "dangerous" warming anytime soon. Typically though, it is the so called "sceptics" that play on this word (and the 'science is settled' meme) to distort and blow it out of proportion. Yep, it is these idealogues that are the purveyors of FUD.

Shrode – climate data does show perturbations caused by large volcanic eruptions and anthropogenic emissions far outweigh those of our latest volcanic emissions.

Bonmot, every single one of your assertions could bounce right off the mirror and smack you in the face. *Exactly* the same, and more, could be said for the AGW lobby.

And, as always, you invoke the well-worn bogeyman, 'the mining lobby'; I'm surprised you were able to resist parrotting out 'Big Oil', as well. But, if you want to play a game of 'cui bono', shall we compare figures of just who is spending how much on pushing their agenda?

I think not. You might not, as Dr. Zaius warned, like what you find.

'The vast majority': the buzz-word of unsubstantiated ideologies everywhere. Who are this vast majority? I want names, I want numbers. If you're going to make such a blanket assertion, prove it.

'Scientists studying climate change' - what does that mean? The cosy little cadre swanning off to Portugal for secret meetings? The scientists who, as Tim Flannery admitted, almost all come from other fields? A geologist or physicist who reads a climate science paper and smells dodgy science at work?

to Bonmot:

Using my name in this way (not to mention being unable to spell it correctly) is a fine example of 'guilt by association'. I have nothing whatever to do with the League of Rights, which simply printed the list of signatories to a letter sent three years ago to the Secretary-General of the UN asking him to note that with respect to anthropogenic global warming the science was not in fact settled, exactly the point I made above. Now that I've looked at it again, the points made in that letter have been amplified in strength since — and, if I may say so, it is rather a distinguished list of signatories.

If you can only use this style of argument, it seems to me, you have really nothing to say.

whoa there, bonomt's found a conspiracy .. hang on, isn't it meant to be the other mob finding conspiracies?

bonmot, that is so hilarious, talk about desperate

Squeers,
My tongue was firmly in my cheek

Anti-green, I guess that is the difference between us in a nutshell - you are optimistic and I am pessimistic.

I can't see how the vast stores of fossil carbon that have accumulated over hundreds of millions of years can't lead to major climate change when they are largely released into the atmosphere, and the oceans, at the most phenomenal rate over the period of about one century.

I also think that Paul Ehrlich was basically right, but just a bit ahead of himself in the timelines of the consequences.

BTW, what sort of anti-greenness do you espouse - opposition to the Australian Greens or opposition to general green philosophies or ??