No shit. Do they really ? So does my coffee.
Once again, if you want to imply that volcanic activity is a considerable factor in global warming, you have to quantify it.

I'll assume you mean 'thermal' in the sense of 'geothermal' here, else the sentence becomes rather funny.
Yes, that activity is part and parcel of the global energy equilibrium yet there is no indication whatsoever, let alone correlation, that volcanic activity has increased in relation to the rise of global temperatures. Unless you demonstrate that, those pictures remain nothing but deconstructionist propaganda.

I notice that you're still unfamiliar with the nature of the global energy system the atmosphere constitutes. The constant 97% of CO² of previous ages is irrelevant as it's part of the equilibrium of the system.

Rest assured, it isn't. I drive a gas guzzling Italian sports car myself and have no qualms about that. It is the global totality of effects human enterprise inflicts on the atmosphere that is the problem. What individuals do is of minute consequence.

It's rather simple actually. If one continually adds energy to a closed system (by burning fossil fuels whose energy was locked up for ages, and by blanketing the dissipation into space by the use of greenhouse gasses), the surplus energy has to go somewhere.

Now, with the nature of this system as it is, a chaotic, selforganizing system, the following effects will be observed: First, logically, the system will heat up. That is a given, a fact already observed on the whole globe.

Next, the surplus energy will be spent kinetically (no pun intended, it's simply the right word in the context) through more massive and frequent storms, tornadoes, typhoons, etc. That also is observed already; again, on a global -average- scale so not necessarily every heavy storm is directly attributable to this so there's no need to bring Katrina into it.)

Ultimately, when left unchecked, two things can happen : Either the selforganization of the system is strong enough to absorb the extra energy and release it back through increased storm activity -which we'll simply have to learn to deal with then- or, and that's the worst case scenario, the system will switch to a different chaotic attractor and switch to the Venusian model. In the latter case, we needn't worry about the problem anymore.

Bottom line here is: how far do we, globally, every individual and nation, want to push the system? If we're prepared to face the consequences, then there is no problem and everything can proceed as usual.

Indeed, that's the crux of the matter. There are no natural occurences that correlate scientifically to the increase of global temperatures and indeed, that leaves human activity.

Do as you please with the polar bears (polar bears might be cute to look upon, but they're actually nasty and filthy creatures). The problem is much larger than this.

Yes, you are, my dear. Because you look at the problem in a political context and feel victimized because the US gets pointed to as the main culprit, you are in denial of the scientific facts. It doesn't really matter whether the US is indeed the biggest contributor or not, the problem is global and can only be addressed globally. Pointing fingers amongst nations doesn't solve shit.

Poor snow.
There are no active volcanos in the Alpine region yet there is an unprecedented lack of snow there that is now, today, destroying the regional tourist economy. A fine example of the imminent impact of the problem.

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder