This is the claim you made.
Your defense of this is only based on sea levels changes, and you added volcanic and impact events later on. The latter two events are short-lived.
Read the thread title and see if you can get back on track.
Yes, I made that claim, and yes, it's true, and yes, climate scientists all agree!
No, my basis is not just on sea level changes, as I've now had to point out multiple times, that's just one thing I was discussing. Obviously I wasn't trying to relate volcanic activity to that statement, because it's not relevant! (Volcanoes do produce CO2, and significant volcanic events produce a significant amount!)
I am not going to type enough words to fill a book, but to give you a bit of a background story as to why I've looked into this a lot, I am a biologist. The first species of animal I studied in great depth was a type of parthenogenetic grasshopper,
Warramaba virgo. This species has a very interesting origin, intricately linked to climate change. It starts over 100,000 years ago, when the climate changed to a great extent. The climate became very hot, and in Australia it was very dry (incidentally, at this time when we know it was very hot, lo and behold, the sea level was about 5m higher than it is now! Fancy that!). During this time conditions in Australia, particularly the west where this species originates, were very harsh. Species became extinct due to the harsh conditions, others had their populations reduced and in many cases, fragmented to smaller areas which remained habitable. Because these species now had fragmented, isolated populations, some of them started to evolve independently, and some changed significantly, either to the point of being completely different species, being modified but still the same species, or somewhere in between. These grasshoppers evolved into what we now consider to be different species, two of them,
Warramaba P169 and
Warramaba P196. When the climate returned to more favourable conditions, the populations were able to recolonise areas, expand, and they met up with each other. W P169 and W P196 were able to reproduce, but their DNA was sufficiently different to cause problems to occur with the hybrids. It's a very interesting story, but the genetics would be beyond the understanding of non geneticists (feel free to ask in another thread if you're interested, I'm always happy to talk genetics!), but basically, the creation of gametes (sperm/eggs) didn't work properly. The males were effectively sterile, and the females couldn't split their DNA in half to produce eggs in the normal way (normal eggs are supposed to contain half the mother's DNA, the other half being supplied by the sperm). However, because the eggs contained the entire genome of the mother (along with some other genetic quirks which allowed development to start without fertilisation), they were able to develop. These eggs hatched into genetic clones of their mothers, which were able to continue the process. The resulting asexual population still exists today. Through analysis of their DNA we can check for mutations and work out how long ago these events happened, which match up with various other evidence for climate change, and come up with a date of around 100,000 years ago (before you go all strawman on me again, no, I'm not suggesting this is a piece of evidence for a rate of change, but it's a nice way to link up a rough estimate we can make from the genetic data with a specific climate point we know it must coincide with, and thus get a more exact time reference on the timing of the species origin and division events, etc). My interest in this species came from another species I had privately worked with and taken an interest in, or rather, a group of species. They were lizards of the genus
Heteronotia which came from the same region of what is now Western Australia, they also speciated because of climate change events in a similar pattern, and two of those resulting species also created races of parthenogens (asexual, self-cloning females). When I heard about the
Warramaba project and was offered the position I gleefully jumped at it. Learning about the history of my research species, directly related to climate change, gave me an interest in climate change and also a professional necessity to learn about it, especially in the context of the last 150,000 years or so (again, all climate scientists will agree, unless they're deliberately tweaking the numbers, that the climate has changed more rapidly during that time, multiple times, than the present rate. The only way they can try to credibly say otherwise is in statements like 'we have no accurate data for climate change of this rate' - like, yeah, we know it happened, there's a tonne of clear evidence, but no one was there taking readings, so I can say we "don't have accurate data records"). My work just in this particular project was further related to climate change because I was looking at the abilities of this grasshopper, and the main variable I tested was temperature, and we were specifically looking at developing a method of directly assessing living things to predict their future distribution changes according to climate change (funny that even having worked professionally on a project designed with future climate change in mind, I get called a 'climate denier' (sic)!). Now, there were certainly scientists in the department who believed the paranoia and thought that by 2019 we'd have already experienced catastrophe (I remember the predictions of the climate scientists I was working with around 15 years ago, and some of them said it would be happening within 10 years, many said that by 2025 we'd have absolute climate chaos, but of course most people don't have climate scientists as colleagues or remember specifics about what they heard because it's just vague stuff on the telly or Facebook to them. Without a doubt, climate scientists' predictions are, on average, massively exaggerated when compared to the realities we see by the time the timeframe plays out, but as always, the popular media cherry picks and misrepresents the data).
As I said, the full version would fill a book, and I'll probably be accused of getting off topic or self indulgent or whatever, but I keep getting accused of not being a scientist or not giving enough information, and hey, I'll still cop that because we have an insane, dishonest propaganda machine AKA media, and when everyone believes lies, anyone saying anything else is seen as crazy or dishonest, but there you go.
As for your repeated question about the title...
I've addressed the thread title question at least three times in this thread including over the last 48 hours. The answer is a completely clear, unambigous "no".