It's abundantly clear that volcanic activity can both cool and heat the planet, depending on what type and the duration. Pinatubo dumped a lot of SO2 into the atmosphere and cooled the climate for a year or so, but 55M years ago the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum saw wide-spread extinctions following a 6°C (11°F) rise in global temperatures over a 20,000 year period. The causes are complex but volcanic activity in what was to become the North Atlantic ocean between Europe and Greenland is implicated in a prolonged release of submarine methane clathrates. Similarly flood basalt eruptions in India, Indonesia and Siberia are associated with massive extinctions. Meanwhile we are dumping fossil carbon into the atmosphere at a rate over 100x more than all the volcanoes on the planet, overwhelming the natural processes for sequestering that carbon. Not a good idea.

Whoops, sorry Darren, dump that previous posting, I re-read your article and realised I had knee-jerked mis-read it. Interesting that the correlation between climate change and vulcanism does exist, but seems logical. It's amazing how much mass ice caps have and how much they can distort the seemingly solid crust. Probably more significant for the effects that melting ice caps will have on sea levels in their vicinity. If the Greenland ice cap melted their sea levels would fall as the gravitational attraction of all that ice dissipates.

The problem is that the denialati will latch on to this information as a reason to deny the 'A' in AGW and thus argue that we should continue with business as usual, i.e. not take any action to combat it. In some respects the scientific community are just as guilty, but from the other side of the argument.
It is not important who, what or why the planet is warming. I.e. it is the ‘GW’ in AGW is what matters, not the ‘A.’ What is important is that the current warming is headed for conditions by mid-century that can only be described as dire. We know that the warming is not going to stop by then either, no matter what we do, other than perhaps full-blown nuclear war. A cure worse than the disease if ever there were one. So we know that our families, indeed all future generations, are in for a bleak time of it. What we can also be fairly sure of is that at some point society will not withstand the stress the rising temperatures will create. We can be fairly certain that drought will be a common feature of the future climate and food production will be severely curtailed as a result. Parts of the world have already experienced food riots. We can only expect there to be more of them, many more. Seeing as supermarkets only carry around 3 day’s supply, how long will it be before the mob takes over? From there, we can expect fuel deliveries to stop and seeing as society relies heavily on transport to function the descent into chaos will be rapid. Do we really want our children and grandchildren to have to endure such privations?
Future generations will look back on this generation in particular and wonder why we were so selfish not to act to ameliorate the harm that all the science is warning us of. Was the captain of the Titanic wrong to at least try to avoid the iceberg because? It was, after all, not man-made i.e. not anthropogenic in origin? That might sound stupid, but surely arguing about the ‘A’ in AGW is just as stupid. The Titanic disaster only killed about 1500 people. GW, regardless of its cause, is on target to kill many orders of magnitude more. Their blood will be posthumously on our hands unless we do more than only give lip service to taking any action. And all the while the fossil fuel industry executives just keep reaping in their profits. One can only assume that they don’t have any children, or if they do, they don’t care about them. Strange how the teaching of ‘Do unto others ...’ has be so completely forgotten by those that do most to try and convince us that they are Christians, and some indeed to convince us that their nation is blessed by God.
Anyone expected to be alive by mid-century, or is the guardian of someone who will, would do well to watch the 2012 Cabot Annual Lecture (available on Youtube). Perhaps after watching it, the denialati might be persuaded to keep their mouths shut and their minds open. They are all in the same boat as the rest of us and no amount of wealth is going to buy them forgiveness, or even shelter from the forthcoming storm.

Ian , 100x more Co2 than volcanos ? Really ? proof please....

I'm wondering if the headline wasn't specifically tailored to lure in suckers who wouldn't read the actual contents and just flame war with denialists. Could an editor please step in and correct this? "Global Warming Linked to Increased Volcanic Activity" would be a much more appropriate title.

No big suprise here I'd say. Like everthing in nature and most of physics, there is a balance. It just makes sense that as the earth warms it's going to have a cool down response. And besides that, what are we talking about here. Melted rock. Wouldn't it make sense that the hotter the planet gets, the more melted rock you're going to get?

AGW (anthropogenic global warming) may have some localized effects, heat islands, etc. However, how is GW explained from ice and ocean floor cores for time periods that there wasn't the 'anthropogenic' input?
There is a force much larger and more powerful, than we are giving to the human race, which can influence GW or global cooling - the Sun.
Wasn't there a recent report that there was GW on Venus, and Mars? I understand humans think their influence is great, . . . but really?!?

So, MAYBE AL GORE can sell us all some giant corks to plug the volcanos?

As expected, climate change deniers flock (note the bird brain implication) to articles like this. Sorry, but none of this undermines the well-established fact that humans are warming the planet and that the consequences are not good. I noted one poster lambasting Al Gore! Good grief!

BombR76 - Milankovitch cycles and associated forcing is included in IPCC climate models.