Discussion in 'Contrails and Chemtrails' started by Mick West, Jun 22, 2015.
Looks like the chemtrailists have not yet noticed the retraction. Not a word about it anywhere.
I don;t suppose they would be itching to tell everyone about it
There was this posted this morning on CAKU:
that sounds like his response to the CS thing though. Not the new retraction of the MDPI paper.
LOL. "His paper was proven to be hopelessly flawed, which is the best evidence he was right"!
On the lighter side of things, Herndon has inspired blog articles like this one:
I think he wants to sue the journal or something.
Actually, with some justification, as they should have rejected the paper in the first place, thereby saving him from the public embarrassment of having his paper retracted.
I mean, after all, we hope that a 10 year-old has the sense to know that he can't fly,
but--just the same--if Dad says "Actually son, I think you likely can!" while the kid stands on the roof...
it's hard to feel that Dad didn't contribute to the injury.
(Dang...it sounded like an awesome analogy...in my head!)
What? He was politely invited to discuss his first paper but refused, didn't he?
Ah, yes that is what happened.
Debunked: J. Marvin Herndon's "Geoengineering" Articles in Current Science (India) and IJERPH
He might have saved himself some embarrassment and not published the second paper if he had stopped by to become better informed.
I just sent this information to Dr. Herndon and Dr. Tchounwou with a request that they forward the info to Dane Wigington. They can't say they don't know!
thechief762 . <firstname.lastname@example.org>
7:22 AM (0 minutes ago)
to mherndon, paul.b.tchounw.
Drs. Tchounwou and Herndon,
I see that Dr. Herndon is publicly stating, " keep in mind the dust has not settled on the retraction matter"
For your edification I'm attaching several historical references for elemental analyses of rain and snow.
These include Antarctic ice cores 183 years old, the 1930's, 1960's and 70's. So, as you can see the dust has been settling for a very long time! I hope this information will be useful to you and am sure that with the vast resources out there you can confirm my own review of the subject many other ways.
Dr. Herndon, I would still enjoy seeing the data I requested from you a week ago to add to my collection. Finally, please share my references with your friend Dane Wigington as he has long been stating that zero aluminum should be found in rainwater.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 1:03 PM, thechief762 . <email@example.com> wrote:
I would like to see the San Diego rain water analysis data and collection method which you mention in your recent IJERH paper,
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 9375-9390; doi:10.3390/ijerph120809375
"The author personally collected rainwater samples for chemical analysis and compared those data to corresponding average values of experimental leachate chemical analyses , which as shown below provides a firm basis for identifying the particulate substance being emplaced as an aerosol in the troposphere as coal fly ash. Because of persistent spraying, rainwater devoid of spray contamination was not available."
How may I access that information?
The pdf of the paper is still available, but "RETRACTED" is written on it in huge letters:
This is in Chemtrails Global Skywatch.
Here's more comment from Herndon regarding the retraction:
He doesn't appear to have understood what the problem is with his paper.
i reckon he understands, its his site subscribers he hopes don't ever work it out.
as i just watched the thread unfold its scientific depth a tad beyond me, here's a jolly well done to all the MB clear thinkers skeptic & boffins who saw and sorted this
As is often the case is the Conspiracy Community, they take one piece of incorrect information and they build upon it further and so the Conspiracy evolves. In this case Syd Stevens from San Diego, the person behind the pseudonym Socal Skywatch, has posted this to his page;
I noticed that with the "Planet X" people. They(or their leader, Nancy Lieder) would take a false "fact", declare it proved, then build on that. Over and over and over again until they had what appeared to be a veritable mountain of "evidence" proving them right.
The comments are fun
His reply when asked about the quality of his own work?
Yes, but there is a surprising amount of rational and sensible people there too, which is always refreshing. Go team brains!
Yes, absolutely I was thinking the same
Simply trying to explain the science
Then the inevitable "disinfo / shill" in response
Herndon replies again.
"instead of 140,000"??? Dude, it should have been 140,000,000!
Yes, but all the other values in the table are also off by a factor of 1000, so the fractions are only off by a factor of 2, not a factor of 2000.
I believe basically he mistakenly wrote micrograms instead of milligrams in the heading.
I notice he doesn't really address any of the other criticisms except to effectively recast them as slander.
Yes, the most important problem with the paper (in terms of pure science) is the statistical irrelevance of his results, with or without the correct figures. Unfortunately it's harder to explain this, and easy to point out the numerical errors. But it's a poor quality retraction, even if the paper obviously need retracting.
Regarding 70,000 vs. 140,000, I don't think he simply wrote down the wrong value there, as it's not written down in Moreno. You have to calculate it from the AlO2 percentage, and I think he calculated it incorrectly, which is a bit more telling than simply transcribing it incorrectly.
Herndon has issued a public rejection to the retraction. http://nuclearplanet.com/public_rejection.pdf
The explanation of the Leachate error:
And this is why the retraction was so poorly done. Focusing on minor errors like that just makes it look petty, and gives the impression that the basic science is sound, but there were a few typos.
What the retraction should have done is demolished the entire proposition Herndon made, and called out the pseudoscience for what it is.
I'm still reading Herndon's corrected paper linked in his rejection, is his only correction the leachate graph? http://www.nuclearplanet.com/ijerph-original.pdf
I'm just a dumb plumber and drummer, some of this kind of stuff does go over my head.
but in his letter to the publisher people he says that his "unleached" was wrong by only a factor of 2. but doesnt the 5 here.... well is the 5 wrong too?
This is his reply to the second point of criticism which was "The chemical compositions obtained for rainwater and HEPA air filter dust are only compared to chemical compositions obtained for coal-fly-ash leaching experiments . The author did not attempt to compare his results to chemical compositions of other potential sources.":
How about rocks and soils from the region of San Diego?
Apparently he doesn't realize that one cannot prove that a car of unknown make X is a Mercedes by only comparing it to a Mercedes. Because then one will find the car of make X has four wheels, one engine, one steering wheel, and one transmission, just like the Mercedes, so it must be a Mercedes. Even if it's a Land Rover in reality.
By the way, he simply omitted the statistical analysis from his revised manuscript. He expects the reader to just look at the figures and conclude that the rain contains coal fly ash.
The fact that the revised version contains no statistical analysis is by itself enough to warrant another rejection.
No, 1.4x105 is 14x104
Could someone explain what I am missing here?
He claims that the black bars are the element ratios for "leach data", i.e. the leachate from Figure 1 [sic: "Figure 1" is his photos of contrails; he means "Table 1"].
Here is Table 1:
The leachate figure is the second column of values for each element. So how is he working out his ratios?
For instance, for Ba/Al I get:
5.34 x 10-1 / 5.37 x 103 = 9.94 x 10-5, or 0.0000994.
Yet, the value on the bar graph is approximately 0.1.
Similarly, for Sr/Al the ratio is:
5.09 / 5.37 x 103 = 9.48 x 10-4 = 0.000948
Whereas the value on the bar graph is approximately 1.
The ratios appear to bear no relation to the leachate figures. How can boron, with a leachate value of 3.32 ug/L, have a higher ratio than magnesium, with a leachate value of 2.85 x 103 ug/L, almost 1,000 times higher? How come iron (1.22 x 102 ug/L) has the lowest ratio, when it is present at over 200 times the concentration of barium (5.34 x 10-1 ug/L)?
I'm sure I am missing something simple here, but what is he actually comparing on this graph?
The table is a mess, most values are off by several orders of magnitude. We discussed this earlier (see around post #146). But the figure is actually correct, except that he shows the ratios of the averages instead of the averages of the ratios.
Excerpt from Herndon's email to the editor at http://www.nuclearplanet.com/email-Sept21.pdf
So he argues that the 1967 rain data are irrelevant because coal fly ash was then released into the air.
BTW he also cites us in his rejection notice:
Thanks. I saw that his figures were out by several orders of magnitude, but I hadn't done all the calculations. So the figures on the graph are actually correct (ish), they just bear no relation to the table that he claims is the source for the graph? How did he manage that?
And surely the major point of the retraction ought to be that the central thrust of the article - that the "fingerprints" match - is utterly untrue! Even if you assume that this graph is correct, the ratios are clearly not similar.
From Mick's spreadsheet, these are the ratios (rainwater first, then leachate).
Ba: 0.129, 0.100
Sr: 0.170, 0.933
Fe: 0.912, 0.022
Ca: 38.0, 63.1
Sr: 12.9, 27.5
Mg: 19.1, 0.525
B: 0.240, 0.617
Putting those values on a linear rather than logarithmic axis (and removing aluminium, because showing that 1=1 doesn't add anything but clutter), they are clearly not alike at all.
First, showing all the values:
And now, adjusting the axis to show only the trace elements (Ca, Sr and Mg not shown - although note that the leachate bar for Mg would fit on this scale, despite the rainwater one being up at almost 20!)
As "fingerprint matches" go, this is pretty abysmal!
For the benefit of any lurkers (including possibly Dr. Herndon), here is a thread where we collected a bunch of references showing aluminum content in precipitation, ranging from the 1960s to the modern day: https://www.metabunk.org/chemical-composition-of-rain-and-snow-aluminum-barium-etc.t135/
Ian Simpson seems to be pushing the idea that it was retracted due to a request by Mick/Metabunk. He doesn't mention what issues he has with the paper, but I wonder if it's that all those "100% PROOF!!!!" links to it on chemtrail sites now show it's been retracted?
Metabunk is concerned for different reasons than he is willing to recognize.
And "MI5K WEST"? Really? I thought he was CIA?
Separate names with a comma.