It depends on how you define civilization, of course. Using the Merriam Webster definition ("... specifically: the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained"), yes, civilization is much less than 10,000 years old. Even fairly simple systems of pre-writing date back only around 6000 years, with more coherent writing dating back around 5000 years.
No. What would make you imagine that?
Of course. What would make you think otherwise?
You seem to be missing the point. The current rate of warming is much faster than anything in the paleoclimate reconstruction going back hundreds of thousands of years. That includes multiple little ice ages and subsequent warming periods. None of those periods had warming anywhere near this fast.
You're confused. The "little ice age," which followed the Medieval Warm Period is generally looked like this:
As you can see, the low point was somewhere around 1600-1700, so if you wanted to emphasize total warming, you'd start your measure there. Yet scientific temperature reconstructions either start much earlier (when using paleoclimate proxies), or much later (1880, when using instrument records). The scientists use the best available data, rather than playing the denialist game of cherry-picking start and end dates in an attempt to make a political point.
Yes. Clearly you don't, though. How long do you think sunspot cycles last? How long do you think this extraordinary pace of warming has lasted? Are you aware that the sun's output has actually been DECREASING slightly over the past 50 years?
Some are, some aren't. What the denialist propagandists rely on, here, is incredible ignorance about the solar system among their target audience. They cherry pick a few bodies in the solar system where we have sparse data suggesting maybe they've gotten warmer, and ignore the dozens of bodies where there's no sign of warming, or even sign of cooling. Even among their cherry-picked subset, they're usually working with almost no data -- for example, a couple photos of one part of the Martian landscape suggesting warming at that particular spot between those particular observation points, and then they extrapolate that into a long-term global phenomenon. That's what's so funny about the half-wits on that side of the argument. You can present them with an absolute mountain of data showing warming on Earth -- literally millions of measurements from all of the Earth over the course of over a century, and they'll pretend to be skeptical that there's any warming. But show them two photographs from Mars and they're convinced. It's not about any rational standard of proof. It's about whether or not you're telling them something they want to believe. Then they wonder why all intelligent people consider them jokes.