{"id":475638,"date":"2026-10-01T07:38:11","date_gmt":"2026-10-01T14:38:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=475638"},"modified":"2026-10-01T07:38:13","modified_gmt":"2026-10-01T14:38:13","slug":"was-the-anthropocene-rejected-by-science-or-buried-by-strategy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=475638","title":{"rendered":"Was the Anthropocene Rejected by Science \u2014 or Buried by Strategy?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"723\" height=\"407\" data-attachment-id=\"475640\" data-permalink=\"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?attachment_id=475640\" data-orig-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/00-image.jpg?fit=2048%2C1152&amp;ssl=1\" data-orig-size=\"2048,1152\" data-comments-opened=\"1\" data-image-title=\"00 image\" data-image-description=\"\" data-image-caption=\"\" data-large-file=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/00-image.jpg?fit=723%2C407&amp;ssl=1\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/00-image.jpg?resize=723%2C407&#038;ssl=1\" alt=\"Image featuring a dark, industrial landscape with smokestacks, overlaid with the question, 'Was the Anthropocene Rejected by Science \u2014 or Buried by Strategy?'\" class=\"wp-image-475640\" srcset=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/00-image.jpg?resize=1024%2C576&amp;ssl=1 1024w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/00-image.jpg?resize=300%2C169&amp;ssl=1 300w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/00-image.jpg?resize=768%2C432&amp;ssl=1 768w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/00-image.jpg?resize=1536%2C864&amp;ssl=1 1536w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/00-image.jpg?resize=640%2C360&amp;ssl=1 640w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/00-image.jpg?w=2048&amp;ssl=1 2048w, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/00-image.jpg?w=1446&amp;ssl=1 1446w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 723px) 100vw, 723px\" \/><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">AI generated by Meta<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That headline <strong>Science or strategy? Researchers call for transparency over the Anthropocene rejection<\/strong> &nbsp;refers to the fallout from March 2024, when the Anthropocene as a formal geological epoch was voted down, and to a long- running critique coming out of the Max Planck Society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For almost 15 years the <strong>Anthropocene Working Group (AWG)<\/strong> worked to put the<strong> &#8220;age of humans&#8221;<\/strong> on the official geologic timescale. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">They proposed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Start date: <\/strong>1952, linked to the global spike of plutonium from nuclear weapons tests<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Golden spike location:<\/strong> Crawford Lake, Ontario<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Rationale:<\/strong> rapid acceleration of greenhouse gases, biodiversity loss, plastics, concrete, etc. since the 1950s<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>In March 2024 the proposal was rejected. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The <strong>Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS)<\/strong> voted it down, and on 20 March the <strong>International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS)<\/strong>, the final arbiter, announced it was upholding that decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Reports described it as a highly contested decision in March 2024, with a <strong>12 to 4 vote to reject.<\/strong>&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The debate didn&#8217;t end with the vote,  it intensified. Two camps of criticism emerged:&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">1. <strong>Scientific critique:<\/strong> Critics argue the plutonium spike itself is not a direct stratigraphic marker of <strong>anthropogenic Earth- system change<\/strong>, that the \u223c70- year interval is too short for an epoch, and that evidence of human impacts are diachronous in the geological record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">2. <strong>Procedural ans strategy critique:<\/strong> <strong>Supporters of the AWG <\/strong>said the vote was leaked to media before the AWG was officially informed, violated the 60% supermajority procedures, and flew in the face of evidence presented. That&#8217;s where the transparency call comes in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>This is not new for Max Planck.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In 2016, <strong>Nicole Boivin<\/strong>, then <strong>Director of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History <\/strong>in Jena, and colleagues published a Comment in <em>Nature<\/em> arguing that the soon- to- be- finalized decision was inaccurate and hasty, and that its formalization must be the result of a transparent, broad based, interdisciplinary process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">They explicitly called for the criteria for the formalization to be published and peer reviewed, rather than established in closed meetings, and for at least half the commission to come from anthropology, archaeology, history, sociology, geography and philosophy- not just stratigraphy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The newer work coming from the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology (MPI- GEA), including J\u00fcrgen Renn, Georg Sch\u00e4fer and colleagues, makes a similar point after the 2024 rejection:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The rejected recognition of an Anthropocene epoch has not ended the Anthropocene debate, rather it underscores that the decisive question is less stratigraphic than political<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Their argument:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Anthropocene should not be reduced to a single GSSP (plutonium line). Human impacts started as <strong>&#8220;a whisper, became a voice and then a scream&#8221;<\/strong>, megafaunal extinctions, fire, agriculture, irrigation, urbanization, thousands of years before 1950.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Focusing only on<strong> 1950s markers sustains a narrow, Eurocentric, elite view <\/strong>of industrial society as the only cause.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Geoanthropology<\/strong> needs open epistemic webs that link models, data, and publics, and decision infrastructures that are auditable, hence the call for transparency.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>In other words:<\/strong> <em>Was the 2024 rejection a strictly scientific judgment that the evidence doesn&#8217;t meet chronostratigraphic rules? Or was it a strategic move to protect the stability of the timescale and avoid a very short, highly political epoch?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Researchers aligned with Max Planck argue that without published criteria, open peer review of the vote, and inclusion of social scientists and humanists, we can&#8217;t tell the difference, and that opacity undermines trust.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Even though the epoch was not formalized, the term is alive:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Nature Reviews Earth &amp; Environment<\/strong> now frames the debate as epoch vs. event, epoch (a formal break after the Holocene) vs. event (a cumulative, time- transgressive transformation analogous to the Great Oxidation Event)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Many Earth- system scientists continue to use Holocene vs. Anthropocene informally in <strong>planetary boundaries work<\/strong>, regardless of the official timescale.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">If you want the original sources, I can pull the 2016 Boivin et al. Nature comment <em>Involve social scientists in defining the Anthropocene<\/em> and the 2024-2025 Renn et al. MPI- GEA preprint <em>The Decision for the Anthropocene \u2013 Between Activism, Doubt and Responsibility<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-large-font-size wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Science or Strategy? The Rejection of the Anthropocene Epoch Demands Transparency<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">There is the new paper, <strong>Sch\u00e4fer et al. 2026 in <em>Earth&#8217;s Future<\/em>: &#8220;Science or Strategy? The Rejection of the Anthropocene Epoch Demands Transparency&#8221;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It comes from researchers linked to the <strong>Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology in Jena.<\/strong> It doesn&#8217;t argue to relitigate the stratigraphy. It argues the process of the rejection itself was opaque.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading has-medium-font-size\"><strong>What happened<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In March 2024, the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) upheld the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy&#8217;s (SQS) decision to formally reject the Anthropocene Working Group&#8217;s (AWG) proposal <a><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Despite the outcome, the AWG continues to publish evidence that the authors say meets established standards, a globally synchronous plutonium signal and 12 depositional environments. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The problem, they say, is not that rejection is impossible, but that the manner of rejection remains unexplained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">What is problematic is the manner in which this rejection occurred. <a><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The scientific basis for rejection therefore remains opaque.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading has-medium-font-size\"><strong>Documented procedural violations they list<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">1. <strong>Violation of SQS chair&#8217;s rights:<\/strong> the vote was called against the expressed will of the chair who according to the Statutes is leader of the Subcommission <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">2. <strong>Invalid voting process:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>11 of the 16 members who cast votes were ineligible under ICS Rule 9, their terms having exceeded the 12- year limit, leaving eligible members short of quorum<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Valid Standard Auxiliary Boundary Stratotypes proposals were excluded from deliberation despite meeting ICS requirements <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">3. <strong>Compromised evaluation:<\/strong><br>The AWG received no opportunity to respond to comments, including those that revealed misconceptions, or to revise the proposal, counter to ICS procedure that a proposal must receive extended opportunity for open discussion. The matter then passed to a quickly convened ICS meeting from which the SQS Chair was excluded and on to IUGS ratification within days. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">4. <strong>Suppression of ethics oversight:<\/strong><br>The IUGS&#8217;s own Commission on Geoethics submitted a report in January 2024 concluding the AWG had been unfairly treated and recommending immediate suspension of voting procedures. The Executive Committee ignored it, forwarding the report only after results leaked via the New York Times. That Geoethics report remains publicly inaccessible. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>They also cite earlier suppression:<\/strong> at STRATI 2023 in Lille, the AWG&#8217;s press conference was withdrawn from the venue and media were instructed not to interview AWG members inside. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">And the Geoethics Commission itself was then disestablished on 28 April 2025 with the justification that its objectives do not offer sufficient interest, only reinstated in June 2025 on an interim basis without financial support.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading has-medium-font-size\"><strong>Science or Strategy?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The core question they pose:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Was the AWG proposal rejected on scientific grounds, such as methodological concerns, marker inadequacy, disputes over the timing of the boundary, or did institutional politics and strategic gatekeeping prove decisive? <a><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Until today, neither SQS, ICS, nor IUGS explained the evidentiary threshold by which it was judged inadequate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading has-medium-font-size\"><strong>What they demand<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">They explicitly say:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">We are not calling for reversal of the IUGS decision, nor seeking to relitigate the stratigraphic evidence&#8230; We call for transparency. <a><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Two steps:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">1. <strong>Full disclosure of relevant documentation, including the IUGS Commission on Geoethics report, SQS voting records, and communications<\/strong><br>2. <strong>Independent review commissioned by a body independent of the IUGS, such as the International Science Council <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Their argument:<\/strong> The Anthropocene concept has long transcended geoscience, archaeology, history, ecology, law, public discourse,  and if decisions as consequential as this can be made behind closed doors, geoscience&#8217;s capacity to inform society is diminished.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Journal information:<\/strong> <a href=\"https:\/\/phys.org\/journals\/earth-s-future\/\">Earth&#8217;s Future<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>First published:<\/strong> 01 October 2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>DOI:<\/strong> <a href=\"https:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1029\/2025EF007638\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">10.1029\/2025EF007638<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Provided:<\/strong> <a href=\"https:\/\/phys.org\/partners\/max-planck-society\/\">Max Planck Society<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Authors:<\/strong> <a href=\"https:\/\/agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/authored-by\/Sch%C3%A4fer\/Georg+N.\">Georg N. Sch\u00e4fer<\/a>,&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/authored-by\/Renn\/J%C3%BCrgen\">J\u00fcrgen Renn<\/a>,&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/authored-by\/Rosol\/Christoph\">Christoph Rosol<\/a>,&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/authored-by\/B%C3%BCttner\/Jochen\">Jochen B\u00fcttner<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Abstract<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In a recent Earth&#8217;s Future article, Skelton and Noone (2025, <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1029\/2024ef005719\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1029\/2024ef005719<\/a>) crystallized the dilemma facing the geoscientific community: the Anthropocene Working Group&#8217;s (AWG) evidentiary case for an Anthropocene epoch is at least as strong as, and in their view stronger than, that for the Holocene. Yet a substantive scientific debate cannot proceed until the reasons for the rejection of the AWG&#8217;s proposal to formalize the Anthropocene as a geological epoch are made transparent. Often framed as a question of stratigraphic markers and boundary criteria, the Anthropocene controversy now turns on a more fundamental issue: whether current institutional practices for establishing geological time units meet the transparency and procedural standards expected in times of heavy public reliance on Earth-system expertise. Drawing on surfaced communications, public statements, independent reporting and publicly available documentation, we identify unresolved procedural irregularities in the evaluation of the AWG proposal, including questions about voter eligibility and quorum, restricted access to key documents, and the handling of an IUGS-commissioned geoethics report. These matters have not been addressed in a systematic or public way. We argue that clarifying the basis of the decision\u2014scientific or otherwise\u2014is essential to preserve trust in stratigraphic governance and, by extension, in the institutions that underpin global environmental knowledge. We therefore call for full disclosure of the relevant documentation and an independent procedural review to ensure that decisions about Geological Time Scale remain credible and legitimate in the context of rapid planetary change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>PDF:<\/strong> <a href=\"https:\/\/agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/epdf\/10.1029\/2025EF007638\">Science or Strategy? The Rejection of the Anthropocene Epoch Demands Transparency<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>That headline Science or strategy? Researchers call for transparency over the Anthropocene rejection \u00a0refers to the fallout from March 2024, when the Anthropocene as a formal geological epoch was voted down, and to a long- running critique coming out of the Max Planck Society.<\/p>\n<p>Researchers aligned with Max Planck argue that without published criteria, open peer review of the vote, and inclusion of social scientists and humanists, we can&#8217;t tell the difference, and that opacity undermines trust.<br \/>\nThere is the new paper, Sch\u00e4fer et al. 2026 in Earth&#8217;s Future: &#8220;Science or Strategy? The Rejection of the Anthropocene Epoch Demands Transparency&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>It comes from researchers linked to the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology in Jena. It doesn&#8217;t argue to relitigate the stratigraphy. It argues the process of the rejection itself was opaque.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":475640,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","advanced_seo_description":"Explore the debate surrounding the rejection of the Anthropocene epoch, uncovering scientific critiques and calls for procedural transparency.","jetpack_seo_html_title":"Anthropocene Rejection: Science or Strategic Decision?","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_seo_schema_type":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_wpcom_ai_launchpad_first_post":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691821078,691830747,691842429,691845892,691845888,691845889,691845890,691845895,691845886,691845893,691845891,691845887],"class_list":["post-475638","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-anthropocene","tag-anthropocene-working-group-awg","tag-earths-future","tag-human-impacts","tag-international-union-of-geological-sciences-iugs","tag-max-planck-institute-for-the-science-of-human-history-in-jena","tag-max-planck-institute-of-geoanthropology-mpi-gea","tag-max-planck-institute-of-geoanthropology-in-jena","tag-max-planck-society","tag-schafer-et-al-2026","tag-single-gssp","tag-the-subcommission-on-quaternary-stratigraphy-sqs","fallback-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1ZJA","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":344763,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=344763","url_meta":{"origin":475638,"position":0},"title":"Anthropocene: Cockroach of the Geologic Time Scale!","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/01\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Geology says the Anthropocene is horst schist\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Anthropocene\"","block_context":{"text":"Anthropocene","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=anthropocene"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/02022_11_Anthropocene_Hoffman_v2-1430x794-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C666&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/02022_11_Anthropocene_Hoffman_v2-1430x794-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C666&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/02022_11_Anthropocene_Hoffman_v2-1430x794-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C666&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/02022_11_Anthropocene_Hoffman_v2-1430x794-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C666&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/02022_11_Anthropocene_Hoffman_v2-1430x794-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C666&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":324100,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=324100","url_meta":{"origin":475638,"position":1},"title":"Anthropocene: The Cockroach of the Geologic Time Scale?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"04\/27\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"For now, we\u2019re still in the Holocene. Science has confirmed that a panel of two dozen geologists has voted down a proposal to end the Holocene\u2014our current span of geologic time, which began 11,700 years ago at the end of the last ice age\u2014and inaugurate a new epoch, the Anthropocene.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Anthropocene\"","block_context":{"text":"Anthropocene","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=anthropocene"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/0Anthropocene.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/0Anthropocene.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/0Anthropocene.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/0Anthropocene.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/0Anthropocene.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":267515,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=267515","url_meta":{"origin":475638,"position":2},"title":"The Last Gasp of the Anthropocene?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"07\/14\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) was established in 2009 to see if there was a way to geologically differentiate an Anthropocene Epoch from the Holocene Epoch.","rel":"","context":"In \"Anthropocene\"","block_context":{"text":"Anthropocene","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=anthropocene"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0Linnell-John-The-Prophet-Balaam-and-the-Angel-1859-oil-on-paper-mounted-on-canvas-Museum-of-Fine-Arts-Houston.jpg?fit=1200%2C827&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0Linnell-John-The-Prophet-Balaam-and-the-Angel-1859-oil-on-paper-mounted-on-canvas-Museum-of-Fine-Arts-Houston.jpg?fit=1200%2C827&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0Linnell-John-The-Prophet-Balaam-and-the-Angel-1859-oil-on-paper-mounted-on-canvas-Museum-of-Fine-Arts-Houston.jpg?fit=1200%2C827&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0Linnell-John-The-Prophet-Balaam-and-the-Angel-1859-oil-on-paper-mounted-on-canvas-Museum-of-Fine-Arts-Houston.jpg?fit=1200%2C827&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0Linnell-John-The-Prophet-Balaam-and-the-Angel-1859-oil-on-paper-mounted-on-canvas-Museum-of-Fine-Arts-Houston.jpg?fit=1200%2C827&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":311530,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=311530","url_meta":{"origin":475638,"position":3},"title":"Update:\u00a0 Yes, We Have No Anthropocene!","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/22\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201c\u2026the committee\u2019s parent body, the International Union of Geological Sciences, has decided the results will stand, the union\u2019s executive committee said in a statement on Wednesday. That means it\u2019s official. Our planet, at least for the time being, is still in the Holocene epoch, which began 11,700 years ago with\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Anthropocene\"","block_context":{"text":"Anthropocene","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=anthropocene"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0Screenshot-2024-03-22-112233.png?fit=1126%2C573&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0Screenshot-2024-03-22-112233.png?fit=1126%2C573&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0Screenshot-2024-03-22-112233.png?fit=1126%2C573&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0Screenshot-2024-03-22-112233.png?fit=1126%2C573&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0Screenshot-2024-03-22-112233.png?fit=1126%2C573&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":242078,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=242078","url_meta":{"origin":475638,"position":4},"title":"Geologists\u2018 Turn in Anti-Science Barrel","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/28\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Even the field of geology is rejecting science in the name of making political statements.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/0cbe1007cd.jpg?fit=1200%2C806&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/0cbe1007cd.jpg?fit=1200%2C806&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/0cbe1007cd.jpg?fit=1200%2C806&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/0cbe1007cd.jpg?fit=1200%2C806&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/0cbe1007cd.jpg?fit=1200%2C806&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":306493,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=306493","url_meta":{"origin":475638,"position":5},"title":"Environmentalism Perverted by\u00a0Climatism","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/08\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The only way out\u00a0of the Malthusian catastrophe would be restraint of human nature, through \u201cmutual coercion mutually agreed upon,\u201d as Garrett Hardin put it.\u00a0Tyranny","rel":"","context":"In \"doomsday scenarios\"","block_context":{"text":"doomsday scenarios","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=doomsday-scenarios"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0mona-lisa-vandalized.webp?fit=1200%2C663&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0mona-lisa-vandalized.webp?fit=1200%2C663&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0mona-lisa-vandalized.webp?fit=1200%2C663&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0mona-lisa-vandalized.webp?fit=1200%2C663&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/0mona-lisa-vandalized.webp?fit=1200%2C663&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/00-image.jpg?fit=2048%2C1152&ssl=1","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/475638","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=475638"}],"version-history":[{"count":37,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/475638\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":475677,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/475638\/revisions\/475677"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/475640"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=475638"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=475638"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=475638"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}