Steve Harris writes:
An article came out on the AIP Physics Today website about a push from some scientists to formally designate today’s human geological epoch as the “Anthropocene”. Editors of the journal Nature argue that the name “provides a powerful framework for considering global change and how to manage it.” Here is a link:
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8107
Here is an excerpt, quoted from an article in Nature:
“Some supporters of the Anthropocene idea have even been likened to zealots. “There’s a similarity to certain religious groups who are extremely keen on their religion—to the extent that they think everybody who doesn’t practise their religion is some kind of barbarian,” says one geologist who asked not to be named.”
Another excerpt:
“Official recognition of the concept would invite cross-disciplinary science. And it would encourage a mindset that will be important not only to fully understand the transformation now occurring but to take action to control it.”
There are some interesting comments in the online discussion. One of them from a poster known as Guest is copied below. I thought it well written and worth sharing.
“When a popular foolishness arises in society one may weep for Reason, or laugh at absurdity. Few take notice of the former, and the proponents of the absurdity are greatly offended by the latter. It is clearly embarrassing to be exposed on the wrong side of Reality, and to have your favourite phantom hazard deflated. Consider crop circles. Even after the perpetrators confessed and demonstrated how they created them, true believers refused the explanation and vilified both the sceptics and the self-exposed pranksters.
Phantom hazards are popular with the fundamentally pusillanimous for the ‘threat’ can be confronted with the (perhaps sub-conscious) realization that there is no physical harm for the believer, but provides a cause of great moral superiority – and not infrequently, a generous income. Politically, phantom hazards are ideal tool for manipulating a trusting population. The threat is what the proponents construe it to be, it will never physically materialize, and victory can be declared at any time it loses its persuasive ability and attendant revenue. The true danger lies in real damage done to society through misapplication of effort and funds, and the theft of personal freedom – in this case ‘to fight climate change’ – previously ‘global warming’.
The arrogance of the political manipulators to pretend that they can organize society to prevent ‘climate change’ speaks poorly of those who would be thought of as ‘leaders’, and brings into question not only their intelligence but also their ethics. We must ask who benefits from this particular phantom hazard – and it certainly is not the general population.
One must admit that, from the perspective of manipulating society, global warming (or ‘climate change’) is a clever tool. This phantom hazard is global. It impacts everyone in the world. And they are not only its victims but also its cause. Brilliant! But dishonest. Such perfidy warrants much more than mere scoff.”
Related:
The Anthropocene Myth
Blaming all of humanity for climate change lets capitalism off the hook.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Fantacene
Hollowcene
http://blog.visual.ly/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/socialmediavenndiagramtshirt.gif
We don’t have leaders we have corrupt aholes who rip us off in 140 characters or less and a media and population that falls for it.
The high priests of the Church of Global Warming want the term Anthropocene to be officially recognized because they are envious that the Catholic Church succeeded in reforming our calendar into two eras: Before Christ (BC) and Anno Domini (AD). Later they will establish the Anthropogenic State of America and Europe (ASAE) fashioned after the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Then they will call for the execution of all deniers.
If man is in control of climate, why can’t we increase the temperature in past 18 years? Why couldn’t we increase temperature in 1945-1977? And why the lower troposphere isn’t warming since 1958? Assuming we are deliberately pumping CO2 to make the world warmer. If control of climate is a reason to change a geologic era, the last 500 million years should be called Herbacene or Vulcacene. Plants and volcanoes are responsible for changes in atmospheric CO2 long before man.
We are in the interglacial period, the Holocene. A new era will begin once the interglacial ends. That would be the next glacial period. Or maybe the Quaternary ice age will end and polar ice will disappear. Until these events occurred, we are still in the Holocene.
Narcissicene
Just a minor criticism of Guest’s hypothesis ‘consider crop circles.’
The Bower and Chorley demonstration is only one human induced crop circle, there are others of a similar nature, but many more defy rational belief.
The subdivisions of the geological stratigraphic record were debated and carefully evaluated by geologists of distinction covering many different specialisms over many years. They also had all the advantages of the perspective of many millions of years. Now a handful of the relatively undistinguished seek to propose a new geological subdivision from a perspective of a fraction of that time! The derogatory names applied to them here show the vainglory of those self-seeking anthropogenic zealots perfectly. The future will judge them appropriately.
je suis un barbares!
After all, I don’t speak Greek and don’t wear a tunic and sandals.
On the other hand, Human generated Climate Change based upon a mish-mash of interleaved bits of grand and petit theories which from a distance appear to have a unity but which, upon closer inspection fall apart under true scientific scrutiny?
That’s all Greek to me!
We now presume to name our own epoch? Ah, how respected we shall be in a few million years!
Fits perfectly.
http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/5519745603_e6be133cf8.jpg
But then what?
ChickenLittleocene.
Idiocene.
In 50 years (or even less), people will look back on the roughly quarter-century between the mid-1990’s and around 2020 in puzzled amazement. How, they will ask, could so many fall for and embrace such a misbegotten, anti-human ideology?
One possible explanation (besides seeking meaning for their life in a pseudo-religion) is: control. The strong desire to promote the self-delusion that “I am in control” fuels a lot of error.
As one flea said to another as they explored the bumpy hide of the elephant they were riding on…
The Anthropocene is today
an era that entered the fray
of the climate change freaks.
Blame the humans! It reeks
of hubris. Me guilty? Ixnay.
http://lenbilen.com/2015/03/31/the-anthropocene-era-worship-the-creature-rather-than-the-creator-a-limerick/
They’re pushing the Anthropocene, again?! Never let it be said that these advocates are not into recycling, eh?!
The first time I heard about it was via The Economist, in their May 26, 2011 issue, in which they had featured not one but two stories! My findings at the time can be found at The Economist dives into uncharted waters of “The Anthropocene” These include (but are not limited to) …
Evidently, the Anthopocene was the “baby” of no less than a Nobel Laureate (albeit of the real kind, rather than the IPCC kind), by the name of Paul J Crutzen. Mind you, his area of expertise was Chemistry – not geology. And, as I discovered, he does have a list of honours, almost as long as your arm – including an Honorary Doctoral Degree from (…wait for it!…) the “University of East Anglia, Norwich, England”.
According to The Economist:
As for the International Commission on Stratigraphy, it does have a duly constituted Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy which appears to have begat (circa 2009) the Working Group on the Anthropocene.
This Working Group has long list of members, some of whom might even be geologists. Although to the best of my knowledge, at least four such illustrious members, Crutzen (as noted above), along with Andrew Revkin, Naomi Oreskes and Will Steffen are not.
Revkin’s membership on this working group might explain why – approximately one week prior to The Economist‘s double-bill – the NYT also decided to feature the Anthropocene, albeit in a slightly more cautionary way, via article authored by … Revkin:
It might also be worth noting that among those who have given their blessing to the Anthropocene is Canada’s aging fruit-fly expert, David Suzuki. As for the “concerned Nobel laureates”, I mentioned above, there was a whole slew (OK, only 17, but not one of whom was actually named) who had held a gathering in May, 2011. And (of course!) they issued a “declaration” which began a follows:
Amazing, eh?!
[To save your mouse from having to scroll back to top, links to sources of above quotes … and more … available here]
[Thank you. .mod]