Readers may recall my occasional rants over the years against the growing bandwagoning for an ‘Anthropocene‘ epoch at the top of the stratigraphic column. I , for one, was delighted to find in the latest issue of GSA Today a more sober assessment of the campaign by two stratigraphers who are well placed to have a real say in whether or not the ‘Anthropocene’ is acceptable, one serving on the International Commission on Stratigraphy, the other on the North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature (Finney, S.C. & Edwards, L.E. 2016. The “Anthropocene” epoch: Scientific decision or political statement? GSA Today, v. 26 (3–4).
Earth-logs 
Core Concept: Are we in the “Anthropocene”?
John Carey
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
vol. 113 no. 15
3908–3909, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1603152113
LikeLike
Dear Piso Mojado
Thanks for the link to the PNAS piece on progress towards an Anthropocene Epoch. ICS chair Stan Finney puts it very nicely – ‘The leaders of the [anthropocene] working group are having too much fun publishing and getting publicity’ for them to get round to submit a proposal to the International Commission on Stratigraphy. The easiest but most boring means of resolving the issue is to propose a change to the name of the Holocene. But, somehow, I can’t imagine that being a coup for the AWG.
‘Wet Floor’ is an excellent handle by the way!
Steve Drury
LikeLike
The age of Aquarius? Nope, it’s the Anthropocene epoch.
https://phys.org/news/2019-03-opinion-anthropocene-doesnt-species-future.html
LikeLike
Thanks for the link, PM. It’s good to find support for my view of the ‘Anthropocene’. I’ll probably write a piece about it. Regards Steve Drury
LikeLike