It doesn't get much better than this one.

Population (people) causes climate change
climate change is causing volcanic eruptions
therefore population is causing volcanic eruptions.

Maybe,

I'm not sure I agree with some of the mechanisms described.

Melting land-borne ice will drastically alter the pressures borne, perhaps resulting in the local effects described. Rocks liquify under immense pressure, release of pressure and subsequent adiabatic expansion and cooling induce solidification. That being said, all this pressure release and expansion may result in the geological upsets described, but not via the mechanism given.

I do not think "rising sea levels" will alter things. Thermal expansion of seawater does not alter the weight borne by the seafloor. The only change is from melting land-borne ice which is a small coontribution, spread over the entire sea and gradually applied.

Rusty

All this may be true. But to the extent that 'climate change' is due to natural phenomena and cycles, there may not be much that we can do about it.

Fred makes only a brief reference to possible human involvement in 'climate change' (which by the way in this context clearly means 'global warming') when he says: "Indeed, thanks to climate change, a human hand may already be at work."

But of course, he doesn't address whether humans are affecting climate in any meaningful way, and if so, whether by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or alternatively land-use factors that are affecting local and regional climate by interference with natural hydrological cycles, for example.

So the key question here, given all the panic about anthropogenic CO2, is whether that CO2 is affecting climate, and if so, by how much. The physics of this seem not to be in dispute. There is a greenhouse affect due to CO2, and the magnitude seems to be around 1 deg C warming for every doubling of atmospheric CO2.

Where the controversy arises is in relation to natural feedbacks that could either enhance the warming for a doubling (positive feedbacks) or reduce it (negative feedbacks). The IPCC assumes that the feedbacks are strongly positive, but provides no evidence for these assumptions. Observation of reality (past changes in CO2 level and temperature) seem to suggest that the feedbacks are likely negative, and this is argued by quite a few credible climate scientists.

Until this key question is resolved, there really doesn't seem to be much point in discussing the possible geological impacts of climate change.

Global Warming causes everything. Obviously.Even eye problems.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/09/climate-craziness-of-the-week-bonus-eye-of-the-beholder-edition/

Persausive science based argument. Land based melt water will always collect at the lowest point, usually a fold in the crust, which is also likely to be a fault line? Extra weight on fault lines is often postulated as contributing to tectonic plate movements, earthquakes?
Also, we know that the cooling of the globe's interior causes some shrinkage, which also brings progressive tectonic plate adjustment and mounting pressure, which when released causes earthquakes?
What has not been equated, is the very rapid movement and role of the magnetic north pole, which is rushing toward Siberia at around an unprecedented fifty kilometres a year? Rhrosty.

Could it be a sign of the times as Jesus predicted. Both faith based positions.