1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    [​IMG]

    J. Marvin Herndon has published two article claiming to provide evidence of an ongoing program of covert geoengineering involving spraying the waste ash from power stations out of planes.

    The first is in the Indian journal Current Science, titled Aluminum poisoning of humanity and Earth’s biota by clandestine geoengineering activity: implications for India (pdf), the second is in the Open Access International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, titled Evidence of Coal-Fly-Ash Toxic Chemical Geoengineering in the Troposphere: Consequences for Public Health

    Anti-geoengineering activists already hail them as the first science publications acknowledging ongoing geoengineering. They have been frequently shared on social media, and will likely by shared for many years to come.

    The articles are similar in that they take a detailed analysis of coal fly ash by Moreno, et al., and attempt to show that test done by geoengineering activists are statistically similar, and hence are evidence of covert spraying of coal fly ash from planes.

    The primary and overriding problem with this theory is that you get a very similar degree of "match" if you compare the results to the average prevalence of those elements in the crust of the Earth, meaning that he could easily be detecting simple dirt and dust:

    HerndonSnowComparison.

    And multiple peer reviewed publications deal with the detection of fly ash. They concur that it is chemically similar to soil.

    Fugitive Emissions from a Dry Coal Fly Ash Storage Pile, Mueller, Shaw, et al, 2011
    Heavy metal and metalloid content of fly ash collected from the Sual, Mauban and Masinloc coal-fired power plants in the Philippines, 2002
    There are multiple other problems with Herndon's two papers: figures are incorrect, values given are off by several orders of magnitude, masses are calculated incorrectly, data sets appear to have been chosen arbitrarily. But the biggest problem with the paper, even if we take the data at face value, is that there's no actually correlation of the data sets, and no control is used. Statistical significance tests are applied incorrectly.

    Herndon acknowledged statistician Weidan Zhou for "professional statistics advice". Weidan Zhou requested we post his following statements regarding Herndon's paper here:
    With a later clarification:
    [Update 9/1/2015: The acknowledgement for Weidan Zhou was removed from the paper without comment on Aug 25th, this most recent version of the paper is labeled "v2"]

    I shall list the major problems here, and then discuss them in more depth as needed. The two papers will be referred to as CS (Current Science, the India Paper) and IJ (International Journal, the US paper) for convenience. The Moreno paper will also also be frequently referenced, and all three papers are attached to this post.

    1. In CS, Figure 6 contains two sets of data, but one is just the mirror of the other, and not actual separate data.
    2. In CS, the incorrect data is claimed to have a "fingerprint similarity" when the data sets are distinctly different.
    3. In both CS and IJ, no attempt is made to tie the data to airplanes, other than the claim that the author first noticed persistent trails over his home city in 2014.
    4. In IJ, Table 1, he lists Moreno's value for un-leached Aluminum at 70,000 µg/kg, when the actual figure derived from Moreno's Table 2 data is 14%, or 140,000,000 µg/kg
    5. In both CS and IJ, the graphs are plotted with a logarithmic scale, which makes vastly dissimilar values look similar.
    6. In IJ, the data are adjusted so the values for Aluminum are identical, and then the identical Aluminum values are include in the graph, giving a false impression of correlation.
    7. In IJ, the reference values from Moreno show huge semi-random ranges in values, the compared values generally fall outside these ranges, and yet are described as being statistically identical.
    8. In IJ, Figure 1 is described as photos "taken on cloudless days", and yet clouds can clearly be seen in the images.


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: This is a summary post (and a work in progress) derived from discussions in this and other threads, as such some of the following discussion might seem repetitive.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jul 11, 2016
    • Like Like x 4
    • Informative Informative x 3
  2. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Man he really tries hard to get mention of geoengineering in that paper....but ultimately his conclusions about the amount of aluminium is that it probably comes from coal fly ash and there needs to be more study done!!

    If Dane thinks this is evidence proving geoengineering is going on then he hasn't actually read the paper!!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Herndon often rehashes his junk science in that journal. This one is a "general article". There is no meaningful review and contributors pay a fee. It's not science.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 26, 2015
    • Informative Informative x 2
  4. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    why? doesnt it contradict basically everything Dane has been saying? (bold mine)
    and.. i dont want to read Morenos paper, but whats the deal with this graphic. if i take the white dots and flip them in my photoshop, they are in the exact same placement as the black dots.

    is that weird?
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 26, 2015
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    No, they don't.
     
  6. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Good catch! I checked it, and you're right. Although the legend says that the horizontal placement of the dots is arbitrary, the set of values in the white data set is a mirror of those in the black data set. This is definitely fabrication.
     
  7. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    Herndon is well known to them. http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/auth.php?authid=37499&author=Herndon, J. Marvin
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 26, 2015
  8. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Herndon sure has a funny idea of what "clandestine" means!

    image.
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. OK thanks, I thought contributors paid. Herndon's article in Current Science 10 April 2005 was labelled "OPINION" and his 1996 article in "Geophysics" had a footnote "The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. #1734 solely to indicate this fact."

    Opinion pieces and advertisements is what he produces. He has piggybacked onto the chemtrails hoax to garner sales for his book "Herndon's Earth and the Dark Side of Science" . Here's a transcript of the full conversation I had with Herndon 6 months ago. An incomplete draft is posted earlier in this thread. His scientific veneer quickly evaporates into pictures of contrails and bizarre suggestions for me to move my family to his area.
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 4
  10. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Here are the guidelines for submissions. What is truly bizarre is that all submissions, including "general articles" are apparently sent for "detailed review".

    http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/inst_authors.php

    What would you have to submit in order to get rejected?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  11. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    i guess you can't get much more arbitrary then just making them up :)
     
  12. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    The horizontal spacing is completely irrelevant to the point he's trying to make - don't focus on it - if the vertical values are copies that IS an issue - the horizontal ones are not.
     
  13. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Can you show us the two images "flipped" the way you are doing it?
     
  14. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Just do a vertical flip and move sideways slightly. Hopefully this animation makes it clear how the white dots are just a mirror image of the black dots:

    output_NIQeeZ.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  15. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    What point is that exactly? The caption proclaims that it shows "Fingerprint similarity in Sr/Ba ratio range between postgeoengineering rainwater and coal fly ash leachate. Placement on the horizontal axis is arbitrary to spread out data points." I have never in my scientific career seen a scatterplot with an axis declared as arbitrary. It's completely meaningless.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  16. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Why would it be seen as noteworthy that earth minerals found in rain water match what is found in a product of the earth (coal ash)?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    And we don't even know if his fabricated datasets say that. If he had used, say, a bar chart with error bars instead of a bizarre scatterplot with an arbitrary x-axis... or just given a table with the mean values and measures of of statistical power and significance? The whole construction of the article is painfully silly, it's hard to believe from reading it that he actually has an academic background.

    Edit: But regarding your point, keep in mind that coal is biological in origin.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    It is not a scatter plot - it is a single axis plot that has been moved onto 2 axes to separate the points - nothing more or less.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    And there's absolutely no utility in doing it that way. It obscures any possible interpretation, rather than aiding it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Very possibly - but the point remains that the horizontal spacing is irrelevant.
     
  21. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    It's even worse than I realized at first... the vertical axis is a freaking logarithmic scale!!!
    BadGraph.

    I put the corresponding minor tickmarks alongside it, and estimated approximate values for each point:
    BadGraph2.
    This results in the following set of values. Obviously an imprecise reconstruction, but it gives a ballpark, and shows that the "fingerprints" are dissimilar:
    BadDataset.

    I wonder if he thought that flipping the points graphically would automatically mean that they had equal means. That's not necessarily true even without the logarithmic scale; it depends on the distribution.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2015
  22. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    Is this what you were trying to do, @deirdre ?

    herndon.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2015
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  23. It's just editorial review for structure and readability, the way I read that. Obviously, there has been no rigorous technical review. rather than being a "...the first science publication acknowledging ongoing geoengineering" it's just "...another baseless publication claiming ongoing geoengineering" A rebuttal to Herndon may be in order. If I did one myself, I would have a reputable bibliography.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  24. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    also.. not a huge deal but still, .. one of the photos (at least one didnt check the others) is from his book. In his book he says the photo was taken
    but in this 'paper' he says it was taken August 8, 2014

    hc2.PNG
     
    • Like Like x 5
  25. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    A credible response in the literature would just give his article more mainstream attention than it deserves. It's not just faked, it's done so badly that one has to wonder if he's just pulling everyone's leg for laughs. This is on a different level from Wigington's sincere-but-misguided aluminum and UV measurements.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    A rebuttal would be published in the same journal, so it would not get more attention than the original article. I think a rebuttal would definitely be in order. This journal partly belongs to the Indian Academy of Sciences, and this article harms the reputation of the Academy.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    I'll be blunt: if the Academy is concerned about their reputation, the article should be not just rebutted, but retracted. It is not a product of scientific or scholarly work. Even the basic writing style doesn't meet the normal standards for a scientific journal.
     
    • Agree Agree x 6
  28. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Figure 4 in the paper is useful, though. It shows how aluminum in rainwater varied through the years. And we can see the 50,000% increase Dane Wigington is always talking about:

    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's interesting that Herndon does not seem to think humans have increased CO2 n the atmosphere, whereas Wigington does. Yet Wigington has no problem using Herndon's article.

    Herndon:
    http://nuclearplanet.com/Herndon's_Earth .html

    Wigington
    http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/acid-seas/
    http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/haarp-still-stands-geoengineers-still-wreaking-havoc/
    So a kind of cherry picking appeal to false authority
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 3
  30. Even worse than the demonstrably falsified data in Figure 6, the false claim that the significantly different data sets in both Figures 5 and 6 are "indistinguishable", the completely unjustified repetitive use of "clandestine geoengineering ... tanker-jets" and the simple no-brainer that coal ash is grey to brown and the images show white ice contrails (even labelled as being white) is the direct naming of US President Barrack Hussein Obama as the person who is personally responsible for committing "crimes against humanity and Earth's biota" by spraying coal fly ash over the Ganga Alluvial Basin since at least January 2013. A rebuttal should emphasise this point, after dealing with the other illogic and non-science. This is a very serious claim and if Herndon were to back away from it, he would be effectively cornered into laying the blame for this "crime" squarely at the feet of the Indian government, in an Indian scientific journal.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  31. On another point ... a full re-evaluation of the data in the paper and historical data from other historical sources would most likely just show that both the Sr/Ba and Al/Ba ratios would be similar in rainwater, fly ash, dirt, surface water, snow melt and air. A somewhat banal finding unrelated to contrails at +30,000 feet.
     
  32. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    New readers, and even Dr. Herndon should he happen to see this, would benefit by reading the previous comprehensive thread which takes a close look at the claims Dane Wigington et.al. have made regarding aluminum.
    His sampling methods and controls remain undocumented first of all and his leaps of logic and basic errors show us that his claims are unreliable.

    The documentation you will find in the link includes what amount of aluminum is ordinarily found in rainwater, some of the common errors made and how to determine the most likely source of the aluminum ordinarily found.
    see:
    https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-shasta-snow-and-water-aluminum-tests.t137/
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  33. It is beyond incompetence and most certainly in the realms of fraud to claim that the maximum and minimum values in a data set indicate an increase over time, especially in this case where the minimum and maximum values immediately follow each other and the tests span essentially a decade.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 3
  34. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Maybe Mick could invite Dr. Herndon to come here and participate in the discussion of his paper?
    (And the discussion of the paper could be split off this topic as a separate topic.)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  35. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    Yes, but for the sake of correctness, let's note that Dr. Herndon didn't say that. Only Dane Wigington has made that claim. But Dane has not considered the whole set of data, and didn't create a graph of them. Herndon only seems to suggest that these values are high, although he doesn't compare them to anything that he would accept as "normal". I guess he is under the false impression that rainwater should contain no aluminum at all.
     
  36. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    Well, the important thing is aluminum levels in rainwater have decreased by a whole magnitude since they peaked in 2008. At this declining rate our chemtrail nightmare will soon be over.:D
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  37. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Of some interest is the common occurrence that people don't notice persistent contrails until either there's a particularly striking contrail day, and/or they hear about the "chemtrails" theory, and hence start "looking up".

    Herndon claims:
    Besides the obvious error of forgetting that "warm and dry" air at ground level does not correlate with the atmosphere at 30,000 to 45,000 feet (where it's always below -40 at some point), Herndon himself only noticed persistent contrails in spring 2014. This is something that's obviously false, as even other chemtrail believers have been noticing persistent trails in San Diego for years. Here's the year before, for example:


    In that year (2013) there was a march against chemtrails in San Diego, presumably these people had noticed persistent trails


    The "San Diego Chemtrails" facebook page has been posting near daily photos since spring 2013.
    https://www.facebook.com/pages/San-Diego-Chemtrails/496348250403666?fref=photo


    And from nine years ago, September 2006 in San Diego


    And of course it's nothing new. San Diego is not contrail central, as it does not get many overflights compared to parts of the US that are between major cites. But here's a magazine image from Ford Times magazine, 1961:
    [​IMG]

    So why has Herndon failed to notice this until spring 2014? Why did he immediately start assuming they were "toxic geoengineering trails", "the spraying from tanker-jet aircraft"? It seems most likely that it's simply because someone told him about the chemtrail theory, and he began to notice them at that point.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2015
    • Like Like x 5
    • Agree Agree x 2
  38. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I have sent Herndon the following invitation:
     
    • Like Like x 8
  39. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Herdon's response:
     
    • Funny Funny x 11
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  40. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    That's a strange attitude from a scientist. A real scientist should always welcome open discussion and criticism of their work; in fact they should invite and encourage criticism.

    Hopefully someone will publish a rebuttal in the same journal. Preferably someone with a degree in a relevant field.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3