So is that why Baumgardner makes the errors he does, misplaced trust? That's a lot of trust. If you were a chemist, would you believe a paper by your most beloved collaborator declaring that dust in beakers doesn't affect experiments? Of course not. Baumgardner has no excuse for accepting such specious declarations about sample contamination. It's inexplicable.
I think that your analysis is spot-on. I would like to add another possible contributing factor.
It is possible that Baumgardner doesn't really have an appreciation for contamination and sampling errors because of a general lack of field work and sampling experience. In fact, I've known a few geophysicists like that, and their sterile world of computer screens and databases simply don't carry the metadata of sampling conditions, geological history (natural contamination), or operator errors.
These factors are often overlooked while we over-emphasize laboratory error and the labs become the whipping boys. I have one correspondent on another board who is convinced that laboratories and their workers are in on the great conspiracy of old ages.
I often shudder to think of all the money I have spent on lab quality assurance/control to insure against the cause of 1% of the error.
™ Version 4.2
