Dear jlgdr,
Sure, let me try.
What is the climatologists' main hypothesis? -- Cosmic dust (resulting from the fluctuations caused during the ice age cycles) caused the ice ages.
What could support this hypothesis? Evidence of the existence of the cause (cosmic dust) or evidence that a similar cause has produced a similar effect would support it.
What could weaken this hypothesis? Evidence that things other than cosmic dust were present at that time (confounding the cosmic dust => ice age hypothesis) or evidence that unrelated things have produced a similar effect would weaken it.
A says that the clouds of dust did not appear before the regular sequence of ice ages started. If the clouds had appeared before then, then you should have expected the regular sequence of the ice ages to start before as well.
B provides evidence that the arrival of the cosmic dust coincided with the start of the regular sequence of the ice ages.
C suggests that cosmic dust has caused near-immediate drops in temperatures in the past.
E suggests that cosmic dust was likely present during the times the ice ages occurred.
Thus, A, B, C, and E do support the hypothesis (however indirectly).
What about D? D says that cosmic dust periodically enters the Earth's atmosphere. Fair enough. If D provided evidence that these periods corresponded to the occurrence of the ice ages, the hypothesis would be strengthened. But D goes on to say that the cosmic dust causes large amounts of dust from the Earth's own surface to appear.
All this dust has indeed made the picture a tad murky.

. We are no longer sure "which" dust (or whether any dust) caused the ice age cycles.
I leave you with this gem from the celebrated poet, Henry Longfellow:
"Dust thou art, to dust returnest, was not spoken of the soul."
--Prasad