@mP
In other words your bland text about volcanos is nonsense, and yet its so clear for you. The best you can do is claim to authority.
The text was not specifically about volcanoes, it was about the various forces that affect climate, of which volcanoes are one. If you are saying you read that article and concluded it was about volcanoes then I think we are done here.
First of all you claimed it was "basic stuff everybody knows" and now you claim it is "nonsense" - which is it? Neither, it's actually "barely above high school level"
it doesnt discuss the very question you attemptd to answer about the higher temps 10000-5000 years ago.
It actually does if you are able to read it with comprehension. In summary climate responds to the dominant forcing at that time - could be solar, could be volcanoes, could be Milankovitch cycles - the point is that nothing explains current warming other than human activity.
The best you can do is claim to authority.
There is nothing wrong with legitimate authority where consensus exists. How would you chose a heart surgeon if you need a triple bypass? Would you find one of the 3% of heart surgeons that don't take a mainstream approach to surgery? Authority is the only rational approach for non-experts like me.
Please explain to me why you are better qualified than the 97% of climate scientists that accept human activity is the cause of climate change.