Okay, in general knowledge is always potentially useful and the more of it we have, the better.
But some knowledge is more useful than other knowledge.
In this case, the evidence that life can drastically change global climate is just about the only relevant point I can see in the GOC. As against that, the time-scales are so vastly different that saying, "Hey, what we're going through happened before," is completely misleading, and the organisms responsible (unlike us) had no way of knowing what was happening, let alone doing anything about it, which is not our situation today. Finally, the GOC all turned out all right in the end for the most important creatures alive (i.e. us) so the implicit lesson of that event is that we don't need to worry about this one - which is what most of us want to hear but not what we need to hear.
If you can draw any more useful lessons from the GOC than I can then, sure, make it part of your understanding of AGW. For me, though, the last 150 years provides perhaps 50% of the most useful knowledge; the previous 10 000 years provides maybe another 35-40%; and all our earlier history adds up to no more than 10-15%. It's like working out what caused a car smash: the last 10 seconds is probably more important than the previous minute, which is probably more important than the previous hour, and so on back to when the car was made or the driver was born.