The Shortest Book Ever Written

Guest “the Anthropocene doesn’t exist” by David Middleton

Hat tip to Joel O’Bryan

American Association for the Advancement of Science of America

The full text is available on ResearchGate… I didn’t bother to read it because the Anthropocene is 100% fake science. A scientifically accurate book about the Anthropocene would have this many pages:

Epoch-scale geologic time periods of the Cenozoic era all end with the syllable “cene”.

The word is formed from two Ancient Greek words. Holos (ὅλος) is the Greek word for “whole.” “Cene” comes from the Greek word kainos (καινός), meaning “new.” The concept is that this epoch is “entirely new.”[11][12][13] The suffix ‘-cene’ is used for all the seven epochs of the Cenozoic Era.


Geologic time periods are generally defined by a Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) or “golden spike”. It is generally at the base (or beginning) of a geologic time period. The GSSP is a clearly identifiable boundary in the stratigraphic record. There are rules for defining GSSP markers.

Geologic time scale, click to enlarge. (International Commission on Stratigraphy)

The current epoch, which is already dodgy, is the Holocene Epoch. The GSSP for the Holocene is in the Greenland NGRIP2 ice core. It’s not a particularly robust GSSP. The Pleistocene-Holocene boundary in Antarctic ice cores is indistinct from earlier Pleistocene glacial-interglacial transitions. The only significant differences between the Holocene and the last Pleistocene interglacial stage (Eemian/Sangamonian) are:

  1. Human dominance of the planet and the rise of civilizations.
  2. The extinctions of all the megafauna that we ate.

The Holocene already is the time of humans. Anthropocene is not only fake, but it is also redundant.

The Anthropocene is not currently a formally defined geological unit within the Geological Time Scale; officially we still live within the Meghalayan Age of the Holocene Epoch. A proposal to formalise the Anthropocene is being developed by the AWG

Anthropocene Working Group

The Anthropocene Working Group of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (International Commission on Stratigraphy) was authorized in 2009. Despite being stacked with activists, like Naomi Orekses, they have yet to come up with a coherent proposal for the establishment of an Anthropocene Epoch. But they have come up with a nifty logo…

A hockey stick… Really?

It’s unlikely that the AWG will advance much beyond the logo because “it will be the rocks that have the final say” about this fake word.

Featured image

‘Habitus’ (2013 – ongoing) is an art installation by Robyn Woolston (, commissioned by Edge Hill University, which announces the Anthropocene epoch, Vegas-style. AAPG Explorer.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rod Evans
January 30, 2020 2:27 am

I am surprised the logo was not a bit more imaginative?
A pair of crossed hockey sticks in front of an Uncle Sam poster, perhaps?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Rod Evans
January 30, 2020 5:51 am

I think it is very imaginative. A take off of the “Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas” sign. Don’t forget that Las Vegas is the land where everything is over the top and outrageous. (But I still love going there!)

Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 30, 2020 7:12 am

Or as I like to call it, Lost Wages, NV.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 30, 2020 10:41 am

Tom, I wasn’t referring to the Welcome sign, I was looking at the WGA Micky Man inspired underlined rubbish effort.
I too like the Welcome to the imaginary world of the Anthropocene, effort.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 30, 2020 12:18 pm

Tom in Florida
January 30, 2020 at 5:51 am

Yes, it’s quite good. I guess their logo is AWG…looks suspiciously like AGW!

Gunga Din
Reply to  Tom in Florida
January 30, 2020 7:04 pm

If only “What happens in ‘Vegas’ really did stay in ‘Vegas'” instead of trying to inflict it on the rest of us!

Alexander Vissers
January 30, 2020 3:03 am

The Netherlands are definitely in an “Anthropocene”, major rivers are dammed, fluviatile sediments are no longer deposited, never make it to the sea shores, former seabeds are now land surface, the fertilization, mainly through nitrogen and phosphorus has changed plant growth significantly, former peat layers have been taken from the surface leaving lakes on top of clay and sand river beds have been redirected and dug out. Nothing wrong with that.

Reply to  Alexander Vissers
January 30, 2020 4:56 am

The Netherlanders are so starved for geology they have to import it. link

Reply to  commieBob
January 30, 2020 1:04 pm

Ah not true, as my old professor used to say;

‘ in the Netherlands the mountains are all underground”

Just go loo for them, you’ll be amazed!
What else can i say but a hearty : ‘AUF!’

Best to all,

Reply to  commieBob
January 30, 2020 1:07 pm

Ah not true, as my old professor used to say;

‘ in the Netherlands the mountains are all underground”

Just go look for them, you’ll be amazed!
What else can i say but a hearty : ‘AUF!’

Best to all,

Reply to  commieBob
January 31, 2020 2:49 pm

Actually there is some geology in the Netherlands. The latest age of the Mesozoic, the Maastrichtian, refers to the Maastricht Formation (known for its Mosasaurus), situated near the city of that name in the southeast of the country.

Wikipedia:At the original type locality near Maastricht, the stratigraphic record was later found to be incomplete. A reference profile for the base was then appointed in a section along the Ardour river called Grande Carrière, close to the village of Tercis-les-Bains in southwestern France.

Tom Z
Reply to  Alexander Vissers
January 30, 2020 7:51 am

Although the current era is not defined by a specific demarcation in the geologic or ice core strata, humans are having increasing control over the surface of the planet. Through agriculture, housing, and other human endeavors, some claim that about 1/3 of the surface of the land has been in some way affected by humans (that percentage seems high). But overall that would mean that just under 10% of the geologic surface over the entire planet above and below water would be affected by humans. As the population and technology grows, that percentage is likely to increase.

So over time, I think that “it will be the rocks that have the final say”, but it will be the rocks in remote uninhabitable places or underwater a significant distance from the coasts. This is because, by constantly interacting with the top few inches of soil though human activity, we are creating a churn that disturbs the existing geologic record and prevents a meaningful deposit of new geologic info.

Reply to  Tom Z
January 30, 2020 8:06 am

Tom the point he’s making is that is already covered by using the word “Holocene” – previous interglacials were not labelled as separate epochs; this one has been.

Reply to  Tom Z
January 30, 2020 9:54 am

It’s simply anthroturbation as a form of bioturbation.

Bryan A
Reply to  Taphonomic
January 30, 2020 10:17 am

Careful now, You could get arrested for doing either of those in Public

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Taphonomic
January 30, 2020 11:29 am

I was going to respond with a quip about mass-turbations but I am above that.

D’OH! turns out I’m not..

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Alexander Vissers
January 30, 2020 10:23 am

Have you ever heard of Doggerland?
comment image
It existed during the first 2000 year of the Holocene, until about 9,000 when it started to flood. The Dutch people just reclaimed a bit of Dogger Land for themselves and their farms with all their dikes, windmills, and damns. In about 50,000 years from now, with Canada a frozen ice sheet again, glacial climate refugee Canadians can immigrate to Dogger Land and farm there. If they can stay warm that is. Cold kills. Warmer not so much.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 30, 2020 11:44 am

damn dams…. sigh.
English grammar strikes again.

Alexander Vissers
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 31, 2020 12:40 pm

We call it Doggersbank and fish there for plaice and catch some mammoth bones as a bonus.

January 30, 2020 3:08 am
Reply to  David Middleton
January 30, 2020 4:08 am

Thank you sir

Reply to  David Middleton
January 30, 2020 4:20 am

Neat find David

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  David Middleton
January 30, 2020 10:29 am

None of the animal species shown would exist if the flora didn’t rapidly evolve to feed them. Us animals just follow the plant food. And more CO2 makes more plants. The near CO2 starvation episodic spasms during the depths of very cold glaciations of the Quaternary were a regular crisis for all life on Earth. Mankind’s unlocking hundreds of millions of years of sequestered carbon came to the rescue… that’s the real story that whoever comes after us will write.

John Voelker
Reply to  David Middleton
January 30, 2020 4:38 am

some times are slightly off
the Pre-Cambrian is 80% of the Earth’s existence
the Permian/Triassic boundary is 245 million years, not 225
the Pre-Cambrian/Cambrian boundary is 542 million years, not 570

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  John Voelker
January 30, 2020 1:04 pm

Also, 66 million years ago is now the best estimate of the KT boundary.

Reply to  John Voelker
January 30, 2020 11:02 pm

Also hominids didn’t exist 26 million years ago.

Reply to  David Middleton
January 30, 2020 4:44 am

Big like for that chart.

Reply to  David Middleton
January 30, 2020 5:24 am

Why Cainozoic and not Cenozoic?

The Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler
Reply to  David Middleton
January 30, 2020 7:57 am

Greetings to all:

In my Historical Geology class (or as we affectionately called it, “Hysterical Geology”), we learned that parts of the British Empire (mostly Australia and New Zealand) preferred the spelling “Cainozoic”, which, as shown above, comes closer to the original Greek, ‘kainos’.

This was, of course, back in the early ’70’s.

Also, every time I see that photoshopped sign, it gives me the willies: An “era” is a subdivision of an Eon, and thus is a very long span of time, e.g., Paleozoic ERA, Mesozoic ERA … … …

Yes, I’m picking nits. No one would ever notice the difference between an ‘era’ and an ‘epoch’, unless you are stratigraphically-inclined (pun intended).

Regards to all,


Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  David Middleton
January 30, 2020 9:43 pm


Are you saying there are different levels of understanding?

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  David Middleton
February 10, 2020 7:29 am

Crispin in Waterloo January 30, 2020 at 9:43 pm


Are you saying there are different levels of understanding?

“intellectual” read the technici termini as “synonyms” served to literature stand fast educated: intellectuals.

Without an idea to think of differentiations of real world distinguishable phenomena.

Reply to  David Middleton
January 30, 2020 11:10 am

But virtually all the numbers are wrong. For example P/Tr should be c. 250 and the beginning of the Cambrian about 540.

January 30, 2020 3:10 am

AGW Official backing down/Walk back is starting by BBC!

Rod Evans
Reply to  Eliza
January 30, 2020 3:32 am

Don’t get too excited Eliza, that piece from the BBC is about as realistic as their policy to drive the idea of human induced climate crisis goes. They are still saying, “we are not suggesting the temperatures won’t rise. We are not saying everything is less risky”. They are saying, “we need you to accept Australian wild fires are caused by climate change, we are still saying the world will warm with dire consequences”. Their new projection is 3 deg C rather than the 8.5 report driven 6 deg C +. They are still going to fund Attenborough’s lies and broadcasts from around the World, at tax payers’ expense.
In other news. The BBC are cutting back 450 employees announced this week. The cynics are saying that was the group employed by the tax payers, to promote the “remaining in the EU is good” meme. Who knows? What is certain is the BBC needs to shed the 450 promoting their other favourite false story, i.e. climate change is man made. They could start with allowing Attenborough to retire and stop making a fool of himself among the scientific community.

Reply to  Eliza
January 30, 2020 4:43 am

BBC spinning like crazy. Its always been known that RCP8.5 was NOT “business as usual”. It was idiots like Matt McGrath (and the Guardian, and the other climate scient-activists) that kept pretending it was, conjuring up scary anthropo-geddon climate catastrophe fantasies.

But note how its being spun to imply that we have avoided RCP8.5 only because of the success of renewable and other policies. Its blatant propaganda. RCP8.5 was never plausible.

Why is the BBC reporting this now, that is the question?

Reply to  ThinkingScientist
January 30, 2020 8:08 am

But note how its being spun to imply that we have avoided RCP8.5 only because of the success of renewable and other policies. Its blatant propaganda. RCP8.5 was never plausible.

While I agree with the criticisms of that BBC report as a whole, it did quote this guy Hausfather as saying: “So what originally was a sort of worst-case (scenario) with less than 10% chance of happening is today, exceedingly unlikely.”

January 30, 2020 4:09 am

RE Agreed. However in 3 years they will say only 1.5C ect…

January 30, 2020 5:10 am

‘The BBC is cutting 450 jobs….’

Should be 452 – David Attenborough and David Shuckman…

(Unfortunate coincidence that they both have the same Christian name as myself…!)

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  David
January 30, 2020 11:37 am

454.. Harabin and Edwards need to go too.

Randle Dewees
January 30, 2020 5:31 am

The “Anthropocene” is evidence of the human need to somehow make the case that “We”(that is “I”), are the Center of the Universe and Really Really Really Important!

The depths of time – the Precambrian being 7/8 of Earth existent – is mind boggling. Another mind boggling thing is the estimate of the number of “humans” that have lived up to this point – 100 billion. Almost all in the tiny sliver of time of the Pleistocene.

January 30, 2020 5:54 am

Defining The Anthropocene:

It’s not a geologic epoch, it is a period of social and intellectual schism. It is a time when a large number of people have created organizations, media outlets and rules for punishing people who don’t believe that…

*The climate of the earth is controlled by human de-sequestration and sequestration of CO2.

*Men can become women.

*Women can become men.

Add yours….

old white guy
January 30, 2020 6:40 am

we think we know much more than we actually know.

January 30, 2020 6:42 am

Didn’t these Anthropocene types know that AWG already stands for the Association of Women Geologists? Strike 3!

January 30, 2020 7:09 am

When they put two blatant lies in the second sentence, there is no need to read further.
There is no “runaway” climate change.
There is no massive species extinction.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  MarkW
January 30, 2020 2:31 pm

I flagged that, also.

Izaak Walton
January 30, 2020 9:54 am

It is surprising how David manages to be both 100% correct and yet still
completely wrong. It should be clear that “anthropocene” has entered the
English language as a word denoting the fact that humans have altered the
planet. It is in modern dictionaries such as the Mirriam Webster for example.
Most people if asked will come up with a similar definition of what “anthropocene”
means so it is a perfectly good word. But as David has pointed out it is not (yet) a
scientific term but then lots of words have multiple meanings and humans are
very good at working out from the context which one is being used.

James Clarke
Reply to  Izaak Walton
January 30, 2020 11:27 am

“Anthropocene” is a word created by propagandists for the purpose of propaganda, and has no scientific meaning. If scientists start using the word, it does not make the word scientific, it makes the scientists propagandists.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  James Clarke
January 31, 2020 6:49 am


We have a winner!

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Izaak Walton
January 30, 2020 11:57 am

In a publication devoted to professionals in science, David’s point is that the term “anthropocene” has no place.
The editor’s should never have used or allow that term as they did.
If the Editor’s allow its use to describe some indeterminate span of time we live in, then they might as well start allowing whatever politically/ideologically-driven gibberish in their articles as the latest fad.

Whatever it is, it is not science. But it does typify the corruption of Science and its AAAS parent by political-ideological forces. A corruption that one day will come home to roost in forever damaged reputations as nature is agnostic to mankind’s political whims.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 30, 2020 12:43 pm

In a book review about a book called “Rethinking Science in the Anthropocene” surely the word
“anthropocene” has a place. The word “anthropocence” is well defined – it is in the Oxford English Dictionary for example and as such there is not problem with it being used in a scientific publication. It is not however a formal geological term. But again words have multiple meanings and people are capable of working out from the context which meaning is being used.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Izaak Walton
January 30, 2020 1:19 pm

All you are doing is acknowledging that there is pseudoscience everywhere today in our culture. We are being bombarded today with pseudoscience in so many forms and medias, its becomes impossible for the layperson to know science from pseudoscience.
From dietary claims, to Drake’s Equation-advanced ET life nonsense, to climate change alarmist claims, pseudoscience is bombarding the public from all directions without any awareness how much junk it is.

So it is no wonder that you and many hundreds of millions of others cannot see nor acknowledge when The Emperor Has No Clothes in such a pervasive cult phenomenon of postmodern science. To use a cultish analogy, you have consumed the Blue Pill and went back to sleep, blissfully unaware of the deceptions all around you. Believe in the anthropocene as you wish. That still does not make it a scientifically accurate term.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 30, 2020 2:24 pm

the idea behind the anthropocene is not pseudoscience but is a recognition of the
fact that humans have altered the planet in measurable ways. Just look at a satellite
photo of the earth at night for example. Or the fact that the amount of uncultivated land is severely reduced. Similarly the majority of large mammals are now farmed rather than wild while the number of chickens, rats and humans have increased exponentially since the 1950s.
In the atmosphere we can detect the effects of nuclear testing that will last for thousands of years while the oceans have measurable quantities of micro plastics and severely depleted fish stocks.
All of that is real and has a real effect (much of it positive but that is beside the point). Hence recognising this by a shorthand term such as “the anthropocence” is useful in many contexts even if
it is not a useful geological term.

Do you object to the use of “colour” to describe the properties of quarks? Or do you accept
that the colour of a quark bears no relationship to what we normally use the word “colour” to
mean? Similarly physicists talk about flavours of quarks and again no-one complains that that
is pseudoscience. Rather they accept that words have multiple meanings.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 30, 2020 4:15 pm

would you complain about a book entitled “science in the victorian age”? The
“victorian age” is not a valid geological time period but it is still a recognised term
to denote a period in human history. Surely the same is true of the “anthropocene”?

While I do not dispute that “anthropocene” is not a recognised geological time period
(and unlikely to ever become one) the word itself has been used to denote a specific
time period for over 20 years and its meaning is well known enough that it can be
used without the risk of confusing people.

And as for “irregardless” people have been using it since at 1918 but it does have the
ongoing ability to annoy people see

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 30, 2020 4:50 pm

Victorian age isn’t being proposed as a geologic era. It’s defined as the time when Queen Victoria reigned in Great Britain.

Your example makes as much sense as declaring that since there are books that talk about winter and summer, there shouldn’t be any problem with talking about the Anthropecene.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 30, 2020 7:38 pm

it is very simple. The word “anthropocene” has two meanings. There is the proposed
technical definition for a period of geological time which as David has repeatedly pointed
out is nonsense. Then there is a second less technical and more popular use for the time
period since about 1950 when humans have started to have a significant and measurable impact on the planet. The vast majority of people can tell from context which meaning is meant. The word itself has been around since the late 80’s suggesting that it is popular enough to have acquired its own non technical meaning. For example there is even a song by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds entitled “Anthrocene”.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
January 30, 2020 1:24 pm

If the word has no scientific meaning, yet is structured to sound like it does to potentially fool the reader, then I would call it Propaganda.

Gary Pearse
January 30, 2020 11:57 am

The only feature with the magnitude, demarcation and distribution for a new geologic time division that could be argued for the Anthrocene might be based on the “Great Global Greening ^тм” caused by CO2 enrichment in the atmosphere. Indeed it is the only palpable sign of (partially) human caused climate change thus far.

One would have to wait a much bigger stretch of time, though, to perhaps see accumulations of rich botanical fossil layers identifying
the Great Greening as its provenance.

Of course this enormous direct CC evidence is pretty much ignored by climateers because it unequivocally marks the event (and its related bumper harvests, surging extension of wildlife habitat, etc. ) as many orders of magnitude positive benefit greater than any perceived negative. The CO2 increase with so far little warming is a giant benefit courtesy of fossil fuel use. Perhaps Exxon etc., should countersue for its unrewarded contribution to prosperity and wellbeing of mankind and the biosphere.

Coeur de Lion
January 30, 2020 12:10 pm

It’s typical of the ignorance of the Left to adopt a terminology which devolves authority onto a silly political idea.

Clyde Spencer
January 30, 2020 2:17 pm
January 31, 2020 3:05 am

Can science save humanity? Absolutely not. I have no idea when humanity will be wiped out, but it will be wiped out. Asteroids, global freezing, loss of atmosphere, excessive radiation Earth on fire, exploding sun, exploding moon or some other natural phenomena. Then we have man’s desire to kill off humanity with massive wars, biological weapons and nuclear weapons. And forget about mankind getting on a spaceship and going somewhere, it isn’t going happen.

Verified by MonsterInsights