Correction; the warm period after the PETM was the Eocene Optimum not the Holocene Optimum.

I prefer the irrefutable palaeoecological record, to the wisdom/opinion, of learned scholars seemingly presenting a contrary view; or quite blatant obfuscation, for the benefit of the fossil fuel companies, trying to manifestly mindlessly, protect a bottom line, well in excess of four trillions annually?
Simply put, the last extinction event was preceded, and probably caused by volcanic activity, and the quite massive release of Co2!
The palaeoecological records same, as typical metamorphosis, volcanic ash deposits, which is followed by a Mother Hubbard cupboard, bare of bones.
Yes sure, some life forms can tolerate and even benefit from heat, like those that populate the boiling water exiting underwater volcanic vents.
This is not what I was referring to, but rather the almost complete annihilation of all oxygen breathing vertebrates, [herbivore, omnivore and carnivore,] some ninety million years ago, following a 2C rise in ambient temps, which in turn precipitated a tundra melt, which released formerly trapped methane, which then initiated a further temperature rise of 3C; making a total rise of around 5C!?
And enough to alter weather patterns so massively, that Britain, i.e, became a salt laden windswept desert, where nothing grew; and, regularly swept by winds exceeding 300klms.
It may have escaped your notice, cohenite, but we humans are oxygen breathing vertebrates, not diatoms, and who would automatically perish in temps above 60C and or asphyxiate, if the Co2 levels ever increase beyond 20%!
When we humans emerged on this planet, from whatever primate forbear, we came from, the O2 levels were virtually double that we have today, along with a whole host of formerly unknown diseases and pathogens, that would have been automatically eliminated in an atmosphere, with a far higher/previous O2 content.
There may be some light at the end of the tunnel?
Let's hope it is not the headlight of yet another extinction event, roaring towards us, with the speed of a thundering express train?
Or that our rational response is not presided over/limited by fundamental fools, or asinine obfuscation, recalcitrant tribalism, or misleading commentary, cohenite?
Rhrosty.

"Simply put, the last extinction event was preceded, and probably caused by volcanic activity, and the quite massive release of Co2!"

No.

The warming came first:

http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2006-0906-200913/index.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7173/full/nature06400.html

And the amount of CO2 released after the PETM warming was LESS than is being emitted today:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFMPP23B1747C

Find a new hobby Rhrosty.

"Find a new hobby Rhosty."

Take it from cohenite - he's a lawyer (ie, not a climate scientist)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-10/climate-change-conforming-to-un-predictions/4417644

Rhosty, do you agree that:

1. Based on the last sixteen years' figures, we are 'on track' for no global warming at all by the end of this century.

2. If you believe the AGW hypothesis, you must also believe that Something has prevented anthropogenic CO2 from increasing global temperatures since 1996.

3. None of the warmist modellers you have such faith in predicted the existence or effect of this Something, and none of them have the slightest idea what it might be.

4. Given this, there is no reason to believe that the Something will not continue to operate all the way to the end of this century and beyond.

In other words, if you think anthropogenic CO2 is powerful enough to overcome whatever is currently stopping it from having an effect, you need to explain how and why. And that necessarily requires explaining what the Something is. Good luck with that.

Ah, the inner-city elite makes an entrance in the form of Poirot to lecture all the little worker-ants.

How's the burqa hunting going Poirot?

There will be a response to England's egregious misrepresentations put up shortly; in the mean time why don't you get your closed mind to ignore this:

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=3303

What, didn't understand it; well yes; not by a climate scientist; well no.