1 volcano can spew more gases into the environment than man could in 1000 years.
Do you have some numbers to back that up ? Obviously it'll be hard, what with 98% of the world's climate scientists being in on the conspiracy to poison our precious bodily fluids and impose a UN one-world Muslim Communist jackbooted distatorship, but presumably the other 2% could sneak a memory stick out of their labs every now and then without the black helicopters detecting it.
Volcano activity is a series of acute events which, over time, average out to be essentially constant. Their principal effect on the climate is due to particles (solid) and droplets of H2SO4 forming at altitude, not "gases" in the sense of CO2/CH4's greenhouse effect. Even some of the 2% of scientists who haven't been brainwashed by the liberal media conspiracy on this issue know the difference between solids, liquids, and gases, I believe.
Look up, see that bright thing in the sky - it drives our planet's weather and climate. Always has, always will.
Ummm... yeah. And the amount of the 140W/square metre which gets trapped to warm everything up is a function of how much CO2 and methane is in the atmosphere to trap it.
I guess the issue is this: if it is real, and man-caused, the short attention span of the population means that it's less likely that effective steps will be taken to do anything about it. We're like an ADD teenager who starts one project, then moves on before it's completed.
I'm afraid that that's probably true, especially since - at least historically - a lot of the people telling us what to do about it were taking great delight in saying we'd all have to cut back on economic growth. Finally, the environmentalists who'd got the past 10 panics wrong, were right about something, but because they sounded like (and in many cases were) tree-hugging hippies, it at got the right's back up and they haven't brought it down since.
The best communication initiative I've seen about this was a web site (I've long since lost the URL) which framed the CO2 debate entirely in terms of US dependence on foreign oil. It was pro-nuclear, pro-wind, etc, and the official point of view was "national energy security", which of course ought to be a big thing for Teabaggers. The real agenda was CO2 reduction, but that wasn't mentioned anywhere on the page. I suspect that things like that are going to be the only way to reach some people (kind of like making genetically-engineered green vegetables that taste like fried chicken as a way to combat obersity).