It seems you fail to understand what a strawman argument is. A strawman argument is when you set up an argument ("Scientists claim volcanic eruptions cannot af

It seems you fail to understand what a strawman argument is. A strawman argument is when you set up an argument ("Scientists claim volcanic eruptions cannot affect the climate") and then knock it down as evidence disproving a different claim ("Scientists claim volcanic eruptions are not responsible for global warming in the modern era."). It's faulty reasoning at best, and a dishonest rhetorical technique at worst. Now, I suppose it's possible that you don't understand the nuance of the argument, here, and that you weren't in fact setting up a strawman argument as a rhetorical technique in order to sew doubt about the current scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. But, unfortunately I've seen this type of faulty reasoning too often to assume simple ignorance.