Interesting the word earthquakes is NOT on the Amrita website (where Pachauri spoke), just tsunamis which be definition obviously are caused by earthquakes

so did the Indian Times ADD ‘earthquakes’, or did Amrita remove ‘earthquakes’ from the text on their website…..

11th March , Amrita: “Unless we live in harmony with nature, unless we are able to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and adopt renewable energy sources and unless we drastically change our life styles, the world will increasingly become unfit for human habitation,” he warned. “Our ancestors, particularly in India, placed emphasis on ethics and social morality; they perhaps had less comforts but certainly had more fresh air and water.” – Pachauri

http://web.amrita.edu/news/news-content.php?id=7&ct=10

Surely he must be pulled up on this, in no way I can imagine can the frequency of tsunamis be increased by humans…

Did he say this before or after the Japan earthquakes happened?
Before would still be very wrong

Did he just say tusnamis (caused by earthquakes!) or did he actually say earthquakes and the University have not quoted it, or have the Indian Times simply made the connection between tsunamis/earthquakes and just put it into the article?

Credit where credit is due dept:

Preceding link to Pachauri was from Andrew Bolt at
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ipcc_boss_says_warming_causes_earthquakes_report/

who in turn credits a reader named Carrington.

Pachauri apparently believes that humans are to blame for earthquakes/tsunamis:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-03-14/coimbatore/28687815_1_harmony-green-drive-renewable-energy-sources

Messenger,

Spot on, thanks.

@Lord Beaverbrook

I think this is what you want re RAE report. H/T Martin Brumby last year.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/18/royal-society-on-uncertainty.html#comment7796953

Sue Ions, a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering deeply involved in nuclear decommissioning, says: ‘Rather than undermine public faith in nuclear energy, this incident should highlight its safety.

The Royal Academy of Engineering produced a frightening report last year on Britain’s looming energy crisis, which as far as I know has not been credibly contradicted.

It defined our predicament as so serious that the only way forward is to embrace big, fast investment in all technologies; notably including nuclear.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366274/Japan-tsunami-earthquake-Nuclear-power-plants-dangerous.html#ixzz1Gkcyb4x5

Anyone have a current source for the report referenced above?

Good sensible article.

Japan currently faces a real emergency. As a result of the earthquake and the ensuing tsunami, thousands of people are dead, and tens of thousands more are missing and may be trapped under rubble, severely injured, and in danger of death by thirst or suffocation. There are over 500,000 people without shelter, with a blizzard on the way, and even the as-yet unscathed could soon face death from epidemics caused by thousands of unburied corpses.

At such a time, nothing could be more scandalous than the current campaign by much of the international press to spread panic over trivial emissions of radiological material from several disabled nuclear power stations.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262210/anti-nuclear-press-puts-japanese-lives-risk-robert-zubrin

Down down deeper on DOWN !!!!

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/fewer-americans-worry-about-climate-change-poll-2243087.html

Hmmmmm...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12718287

Who voted for Greenpeace Mr Huhne?
http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/03/who-voted-for-greenpeace-mr-huhne/

Who voted for Greenpeace at the last election?

A simple rhetorical question for Mr Huhne, because in the Guardian/Observer it was reported that Greenpeace will be keeping an eye on things:

“Chris Huhne, the energy and climate secretary, said recently that “green” organisations such as Greenpeace would be asked to play a formal monitoring role to check that government was meeting its commitments.”
(from Sundays Observer)