Those are elegant thoughts.
Too bad your thoughts are not guided by or encumbered by facts.
Your instincts are not of any significance.
The scientific method requires observation, directly or indirectly, and the ability to replicate your findings.
I proffer some significant scientific research, and your response without reading the research or digesting the geologic evidence is that your feelings tell you that it isn't true? You're kidding me.
You don't like the facts, so they are not facts?
You don't understand the facts, so they are not facts.
If you have a discussion and one person is limited to facts and the other predicates his beliefs on intuition, or gut instinct, or tea-leaves, the person with the intuition, the instinct and the tea-leaves has very much more to say, than the individual limited to scientific observation.
Although what you have to say does not elevate itself to a level of inchoate jibberish.
When I was sixteen I had a track coach who explained that straw-dog arguments are a sign of myopia, lack of education, and bullshit.
They don't work on me.
You don't like Al Gore?
You don't like Obama?
You don't like liberals?
Who cares.
I am speaking about a scientific study and your response is Al Gore and political correctness?
You are not responsive. You prefer semantic cha-cha to scientific fact.
An uncomfortable fact that does not validate your own view is still a fact.
The research is there. It's in everyday English.
If you don't understand it, don't posture away your lack of knowledge with semantic bullshit.
The residue is there. The residue is quantifiable.
These scientists found the residue. They analyzed the residue. They are claiming that it signifies a new human induced epoch.
Before you trash scientific research you might read it.
| 
