3 ms·

Nah, "Ah, it's purely political." is about as snarky as you can get. We are both being snarky here so drop the holier than thou.

• ravenstine 4y ago
  I said it's purely political because it is. What about "Transitioning to a new epoch might also coax policymakers to take into account the impact of humans on the environment during decision-making" sounds scientific to you? The motivation is to persuade based on opinion, which is not science. Geological evidence (in the loosest of terms) of a single species makes a new epoch not. One of the paleontologists quoted in the article describes it perfectly: > “There is no geologic record of tomorrow,” she says. That's irrefutable. The very fact that this is being pushed by a group called the "Anthropocene Working Group" is reason enough to be skeptical of the very concept they are pushing. Their agenda is not based on science, but theology. > “We were starting from scratch,” says Jan Zalasiewicz, a geologist at the University of Leicester who formerly chaired the AWG and remains a voting member. “We had a vague idea about what it might be, [but] we didn’t know what kind of hard evidence would go into it.” Again, not science. In fact, that's the antithesis.