2) It is the rate of those changes that the authors are highlighting. Absolute temperatures aren't that telling (it has been both much colder and much warmer on earth at various times in history). If the current rate of temperature change had previously occurred in the past 11,300 years (i.e. was driven by natural sources) then they would have seen some indication of it. It would not have been as pronounced as the current trend, due to lower temporal resolution (which acts as a low pass filter), but it still would have appeared.
I don't think anyone is arguing that there are not climate cycles (see Milankovish, also, straw man). But you are comparing events that are happening on much different time scales. Prior to 100 years ago, the temperature had been falling for ~5000 years. In the past 100 years, the temperature has risen to what it was 5000 years ago. Clearly whatever cycle was occurring on a 10000 year period is not the same cycle that we are dealing with now.
The diamond anvil press is a pretty neat tool, while not very common in the US, it is (currently) the best way to replicate the pressures within the earth, and even with those we can't replicate very deep.
Although I do not know these scientists personally, I have a hunch that they understand the water cycle, and still believe that water evaporates. The groundwater is constantly recharging, it is just that we are removing the groundwater faster than it can recharge. This recharge deficiency could be due to a number of things, we could simply taking out too much water, or we could have altered the recharge mechanisms. Calculating how much water we take out is easy, but understanding all the ways that we could be interrupting the recharge mechanism is pretty complex. Off the top of my head we could have asphalted the recharge zone, or altered rainfall/snow-melt patterns, altered the natural drainage system via ditches and canals and sewage systems.
I don't really understand the contempt towards earth scientists these days. The vast majority of these people are highly intelligent, and are honestly attempting to understand these highly complex systems. If I were to ask myself, "Who should I talk to to better understand hydrology?" It would be to talk to a hydrologist, just like if I were to ask myself "Who should I talk to learn about cancer treatments?" I would go talk to an oncologist. Believe it or not, there is a good chance that these scientists, who have spend decades trying to understand these systems know more than you, just like I imagine you know more than them in your given field. (As a geophysicist, I don't know much about biology, and so I choose to trust those who have devoted their lives to it's study, just like those biologists generally trust me when I explain some aspect of geophysics.)
That is all.
Actually the earthquake was predicted
If by predicted an earthquake, you mean he predicted the wrong time and the wrong place, then yes, he predicted an earthquake. And this is not the first time he has predicted an earthquake, this is just the first time his prediction was within a week of an earthquake actually occurring.
Giuliani uses radon as a measure of earths movement, and tries to use increased radon levels as a sign of an impending earthquake. This method has never been found to predict earthquakes, but even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
How is it these guys can be drilling again?
So IODP expedition 308 took place in 2005, some time before the GoM spill. Did you even read the site you linked?
And "these guys" are an NSF funded research organization, not an oil company.
I sailed on IODP expedition 308 (and 304, the expedition the article actually refers to) and one of the objectives was to learn how to safely drill in overpressurized environments safely. And the best place to do this is somewhere where you have ample geophysical data relating to sediment formations to identify and avoid potentially dangerous gas and oil bearing sediment. It turns out the organizations that have that geophysical data is the oil companies. If the USGS or DOE or PETA had that information, they would have collaborated with them, but they don't so we didn't. The sites drilled during EXP 308 were specifically chosen to avoid such dangerous places. Every sample that was brought aboard was measured for higher order hydrocarbons which are indicative of thermogenic gas and oil. Once those values reach a certain (very conservative) threshold drilling stops, and the hole is filled with heavy mud. However I don't believe we ever came close to that threshold.
The point being that researcher-industry collaborations are not inherently bad because industry is involved. I thought it was a good thing that industry was be interested in making drilling in the GoM safer.
The carbon would come from the atmosphere and go back.
How exactly does atmospheric carbon penetrate the kilometers of sediment and rock needed to reach most oceanic gabbros?
And the energy community is already geoengineering how to get this released carbon back into the ground through carbon sequestration techniques. They are pumping carbon dioxide into oil bearing formations to increase well production. They are creating zero emission oil platforms that burn natural gas for energy, capture the CO2, and pump it back into the ground.
There are other, more complex, less studied ways to sequester carbon, such as seeding small parts of the ocean with iron, which will increase plankton production, which will draw down CO2 as they incorporate the carbon into their shells, which will sink and become part of the seafloor, effectively sequestering the carbon. Or by simply pumping liquid CO2 into places where it can't escape (basalt formations, subseafloor sediments, etc).
TFA states that pumping particulates into the atmosphere is a rather extreme solution, but sadly many other active sequestration techniques were not discussed. There are a lot of other, much more benign, better studied methods of geoengineering, it is a shame the article only discussed two relatively unstudied methods.
As another commentor noted, this stuff is confusing. And particulate pollutants are not the same type of pollutants that cause the greenhouse effect. Particulate pollutants are the reason why we see a decrease in global temperatures after a major volcanic eruption, the simply reflect sunlight back into space. But these pollutants are heavy and do not last long in our atmosphere. Greenhouse gases however can have a much longer residence time in the atmosphere, and operate on an entirely different principle than particulate pollutants.