Science or Strategy? The Rejection of the Anthropocene Epoch Demands Transparency

Abstract

Abstract In a recent Earth's Future article, Skelton and Noone (2025, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024ef005719 ) crystallized the dilemma facing the geoscientific community: the Anthropocene Working Group'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'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—scientific or otherwise—is 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.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Earth s Future, 2026 · DOI ↗