This article is a joke.

The idea that 'climate' directly or indirectly can affect volcanic and earthquake activity is not new; the mechanisms vary; one mechanism is the variation in ice weight and consequent earth movement as described here.

One problem with this is the measurement of ice cover and the effect of Glacial isostatic adjustment [GIA]; GIA is an effect discovered through satellite measurement of such things as ice in Antarctica and Greenland; the ice levels were originally thought to be reducing because the satellite signal was increasing indicating a greater distance between the satellite and ice surface. However it was realised that instead of reducing the ice was increasing and compressing the bedrock further.

This problem has not been resolved.

Another mechanism is ENSO and the atmospheric and ocean pressure variation accompanying ENSO change, see:

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1919/2481.full

The point here is that there is no conclusive evidence that ice is reducing; so when the author uses the Himalayas as an example of ice loss he is just wrong:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains

The most obvious error in this article however, is that AGW has not been proven; in fact AGW has been disproven. So while the idea climate causes tectonic activity is problematic the further idea that climate change is cause by humans is junk.

Earth's magnetic field is changing in other ways, too: Compass needles in Africa, for instance, are drifting about 1 degree per decade. And globally the magnetic field has weakened 10% since the 19th century. When this was mentioned by researchers at a recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, many newspapers carried the story. A typical headline: "Is Earth's magnetic field collapsing?"

Probably not. As remarkable as these changes sound, "they're mild compared to what Earth's magnetic field has done in the past," says University of California professor Gary Glatzmaier.

Sometimes the field completely flips. The north and the south poles swap places. Such reversals, recorded in the magnetism of ancient rocks, are unpredictable. They come at irregular intervals averaging about 300,000 years; the last one was 780,000 years ago. Are we overdue for another? No one knows.

The geological efects mentioned in the original paper were driven by really big changes such as the melting away of vast ice sheets, as happened when the last ice age ended.. although there has been talk and a lot of forecasts that modern ice sheets will melt, they mostly remain forecasts.. But even if the greenland and antarctic ice sheets melt entirely, which is very unlikely, that change would still be slight compared to the changes at the end of the ice age. But the research remains interesting, none the less..

Here is a theory. If all funding for, what is it this week "Global Climate Change", was dropped the problem would solve itself.
Flannery and his mates are buying waterfront property whilst advising the great flood.
This article is such a hodge podge of rubbish its hard to know where to start but the ice over Greenland was two MILES thick. Tsunamis run about every 100 years and the Krakatoa one in the 1800's was three times the size of the following two.
I have to say, put a tax on climate science and let them pay us!

There is the reality of of the poles changing position and the swirling liquid iron core beneath us that reflects some of the Sun's radiation also moves our floating plates.Look at our iron centre and it's powerful magnetic field.This could also be a major source of climate changes and earthquakes.CO2 may well be a Red Herring.

I have long thought that there is probably a very strong connection between human activity and increased geological activity.

The release of carbon, stored in the earth for millions of years, in one extremely rapid event geologically speaking, is bound to be having an impact. This changes the energy balance received from the sun and directs more energy into the oceans and land-mass, not just the atmosphere.

While it may be small in terms of the total planetary energy balance, it would only take small overall changes to increase earthquakes and hence tsunamis and other disastrous secondary events.

Fault-lines all over the planet are poised to move. Just a tiny increase in energy can cause them to do so.

Could an increase in volcanic activity be connected to anthropogenic climate change? Yes possibly in the future. But much less likely than earthquake activity, which my gut feeling says is already well and truly connected.

So, living on the coast has become precarious, not so much due to the prospect of sea-level rise or increased cyclonic activity and storm surges, but due to the probable considerably increased chances of tsunamis.

A very interesting article Fred.