https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene ... ximum#Life
The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years – the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction (e.g.,[37][38][39]). Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated extensively around this time.
It seems to me that global warming isn't actually destroying anything per se, just shaking it up, and that the results of the shaking up will appear only long after a human lifetime has commenced. We only care because WE (humans) exist in the now. How, therefore, are all arguments against global warming not anthropocentric butthurt? It is only humans that sentimentally value the less than 1% of species that are still around and haven't gone extinct. It is only humans that rely on fisheries and climate belts to sustain such a hugely over carrying capacity population. It is only humans and certain other organisms that would have gone extinct anyway that stand to suffer from extreme heat in the tropics. Isn't opposition to climate change completely anthropocentric? Shouldn't activists for the prevention of climate change embrace this and point out the negative effects (like mass starvation) it'll have on humans instead of looking like alarmist tree-huggers? Is this good praxis? Some food for thought.