My take on the article which I believe is largely the consensus of everyone except those selling blister repair jobs is: Blisters are an aesthetic issue, nothing more, nothing less.
He did address the issue of delamination but makes the point that blisters and delamination, are two entirely different issues. Blisters "do not cause" delamination, but "delamination" can result in blisters. As he states, ineffective bonding of resin to the glass cloth during layup causes delamination. This is a very important distinction because as we well know, the industry uses delamination fears to sell blister repair jobs.
In my opinion, Scott's delamination pics seem to support the authors findings. Did his resin from "so deep within" the laminate and over such a large area simply wash out due to blisters, or was the resin never there in the first place. Could also be poor layup technique or ineffective bonding of the resin. It is a great point however, that had he not attacked the blisters, he may not have discovered the serious delamination issue.
One thing that has bothered me about blisters however was whether or not it was better to pop them or leave them alone. I have asked many, including here on TF but no one seemed to know. I was pleased to see the author addressed this and While he makes it clear he is only rationalizing, it makes sense: (quote) Remember that in order for the chemical reaction to take place, the water has to have been trapped under the gelcoat for some time without circulation. It therefore follows that if the blisters are punctured at an early stage, before they have been able to cause any damage, there will be circulation, thus, the acid will not form or get to a stage where it can be harmful.
Being the skeptic that I am, I can't help but think if simply popping them early eliminates the problem, why hasn't someone else thought of this.