If I had to vote on weather or not the Anthropocene should be an epoch to the geological time scale, I would vote yes. It’s pretty easy to find examples of things humans have done that have changed the ecosystem dramatically. The Berkeley pit for example, has altered the environment all around Butte. While this is a very localized example, it shows that humans are very capable of changing their environment. Unfortunately, I’m not knowledgeable enough about the topic to say an exact date for when the Anthropocene started. In Steffen, Crutzen, and McNeill’s article, they state that petroleum consumption grew around 3.5 times since 1960, and the number of motor vehicles increased from 40 million at the end of world war two, to nearly 700 million by 1996. I find it hard to believe that such a rapid increase in petroleum use as well as motor vehicle use would not dramatically change everything about an ecosystem.
The premise of Kahan’s argument is that people will take stances based more off of their peers than what they actually believe. This can make it difficult to convince people of climate change if a large group of people don’t believe that it’s happening regardless of how much data is presented. Dr. Whitlock overcomes this by not only presenting compelling data, but presenting it to a large amount of people. This can create a community that accepts the idea of climate change, so people don’t feel like outsiders. On a personal level, I think a good way to talk about climate change is to talk to people one on one. This will potentially seperate them from their peers that would possibly influence them to be skeptic about climate change.