As is clearly seen, the geochronologist is sure to begin his experiment with rationalizations at hand, just in case.
I am sorry, but I do not clearly see this at all. I read your critique and the paper twice just to make sure. It seems to me that the only way one could come to the conclusions you did is to assign motives to the paper's authors that are not even hinted at in the paper itself. In other words it seems to me as if you approached this paper with the idea that geochronologists are skunks and picked out phrases from the paper to facilitate an amateur psychoanalysis in support of this thesis.