Debunked: J. Marvin Herndon's "Geoengineering" Articles in Current Science (India) and IJERPH

[Mick West]

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:

View attachment 16226

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

Separating Road Dust and Fly Ash from Background Particulate Levels ... was difficult because there is no direct means of knowing the degree to which airborne particles were derived from soil or fly ash (soil and ash chemical signatures are too similar).

Heavy metal and metalloid content of fly ash collected from the Sual, Mauban and Masinloc coal-fired power plants in the Philippines, 2002

the concentrations of elements detected in the fly ash samples are not significantly higher than those typical found in soil,

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:

1. I didn't see any raw data and didn't run any statistical analysis. Dr. Herndon described his question in the email, and I answered his question.
2. I told him that the statistical analysis he did was incorrect.

Weidan Zhou

With a later clarification:

I don't think I could be seen as Dr. Herndon's statistical advisor. He asked me a statistical question via email several month ago. The question he asked was simplified and didn't have many details. Based on his description of the question, I told him that the statistical analysis he did was not valid. Simply to say, it was incorrect to compare two observations using t test.

I didn't know anything about the background or methods of this paper. And I had no idea that I was mentioned in the acknowledgements until yesterday.[Aug 23rd 2015]

[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.

 

[MikeC]

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!!

I suggest that the primary source of highly mobile aluminum is aerosolized coal fly ash. This suggestion is relatively easy to verify by taking rainwater samples and analysing them for aluminum, barium and strontium. If aerosolized coal fly ash is indeed verified as the major source of highly mobile aluminum, then another more difficult question should be addressed: What proportion of the aerosolized coal fly ash derives from clandestine geoengineering activities and what proportion comes from industrial coal burning in India? One forensic approach that should be considered is direct sampling of the coal fly ash in the monsoon clouds and in the clouds before they enter the Indian airspace. These samples may then be compared with the Indian industrial coal fly ash samples. Although the above described forensic investigation may be difficult and expensive, the results might help India improve the health of its citizens.

If Dane thinks this is evidence proving geoengineering is going on then he hasn't actually read the paper!!

 

[Neil Pennington]

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.

 

[deirdre]

Marvin Herndon has managed to publish an article in the Indian journal Current Science:
Aluminum poisoning of humanity and Earth's biota by clandestine geoengineering activity: implications for India (pdf)

Dane Wigington already hails it as the first science publication acknowledging ongoing geoengineering.

why? doesnt it contradict basically everything Dane has been saying? (bold mine)

There is much information and evidence on the Internet and in books that clandestine geoengineering activities have been taking place for years, perhaps going back to at least the beginning of the 21st century. Notably and alarmingly, profound increases in geoengineering activity has been observed since 2013 (refs 14-16).

14. http://stopsprayingcalifornia.com
15.http://www.endgeoengineering.com
16. http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org

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?

 

[skephu]

and contributors pay a fee.

No, they don't.

 

[skephu]

if i take the white dots and flip them in my photoshop, they are in the exact same placement as the black dots.

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.

 

[Landru]

Herndon is well known to them. http://www.currentscience.ac.in/php/auth.php?authid=37499&author=Herndon, J. Marvin

Articles written by Herndon, J. Marvin

• Scientific basis of knowledge on Earth's composition | Opinion | 10 April 2005, 88 (07) DjVu | PDF
• Thoughts for India's scientific renaissance | Correspondence | 10 June 2005, 88 (11) DjVu | PDF
• An idea for Indian education | Correspondence | 10 August 2005, 89 (03) DjVu | PDF
• Whole-earth decompression dynamics | Research Communications | 10 December 2005, 89 (11) DjVu | PDF
• Energy for geodynamics: Mantle decompression thermal-tsunami | Scientific Correspondence | 25 June 2006, 90 (12) DjVu | PDF
• Enhanced prognosis for abiotic natural gas and petroleum resources | General Articles | 10 September 2006, 91 (05) DjVu | PDF
• Science Citation Index data: Two additional reasons against its use for administrative purposes | Correspondence | 25 March 2007, 92 (06) DjVu | PDF
• Fundamental mass ratio relationships of whole-rock chondritic major elements: Implications on ordinary chondrite formation and on planet Mercury's composition | Research Communications | 10 August 2007, 93 (03) DjVu | PDF
• Nuclear georeactor generation of the earth's geomagnetic field | Scientific Correspondence | 10 December 2007, 93 (11) DjVu | PDF
• Variables unaccounted for in global warming and climate change models | Correspondence | 10 October 2008, 95 (07) DjVu | PDF
• Nature of planetary matter and magnetic field generation in the solar system | General Articles | 25 April 2009, 96 (08) DjVu | PDF
• Internal heat production in hot Jupiter exo-planets, thermonuclear ignition of dark galaxies, and the basis for galactic luminous star distributions | Scientific Correspondence | 10 June 2009, 96 (11) DjVu | PDF
• Impact of recent discoveries on petroleum and natural gas exploration: emphasis on India | General Articles | 25 March 2010, 98 (06) DjVu | PDF
• Potentially significant source of error in magnetic paleolatitude determinations | Scientific Correspondence | 10 August 2011, 101 (03) DjVu | PDF
• A Current Science journal without Balaram? | Correspondence | 25 August 2013, 105 (04) DjVu | PDF
• New indivisible planetary science paradigm | General Articles | 25 August 2013, 105 (04) DjVu | PDF
• Terracentric nuclear fission georeactor: background, basis, feasibility, structure, evidence and geophysical implications | Review Articles | 25 February 2014, 106 (04) DjVu | PDF
• Some reflections on science and discovery | Guest Editorial | 10 June 2015, 108 (11) DjVu | PDF
• Aluminum poisoning of humanity and Earth's biota by clandestine geoengineering activity: implications for India | General Articles | 25 June 2015, 108 (12) DjVu | PDF

 

[Trailblazer]

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

 

[Neil Pennington]

No, they don't.

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.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

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

Current Science is a multidisciplinary journal and therefore research and review papers of general significance that are written clearly and well organized will be given preference. All papers, solicited and unsolicited, will be first assessed by a Reviewing Editor. Papers found unsuitable in terms of the overall requirements of the journal will be returned to the authors. The others will be sent for detailed review. Authors of these papers will be notified of acceptance, need for revision or rejection of the paper. It may be noted that papers once rejected cannot be resubmitted.

General articles [not exceeding 4000 words, 6 display items (tables and figures)] discuss current trends in research in a field that would be of interest to readers outside the field. These include interdisciplinary topics, science policy and science administration, some aspects of the application of science and technology to human needs or the impact of science and technology on society/ecosystems/life. The articles should include an abstract, introductory paragraph, brief subheads at appropriate places, illustrations that will help a general reader, and references.

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

What would you have to submit in order to get rejected?

 

[deirdre]

that the horizontal placement of the dots is arbitrary

i guess you can't get much more arbitrary then just making them up

 

[MikeC]

i guess you can't get much more arbitrary then just making them up

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.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

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?
View attachment 13500

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

 

[Trailblazer]

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

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:

 

[Belfrey]

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.

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.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

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)?

 

[Belfrey]

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)?

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.

 

[MikeC]

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.

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.

 

[Belfrey]

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.

And there's absolutely no utility in doing it that way. It obscures any possible interpretation, rather than aiding it.

 

[MikeC]

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

 

[Belfrey]

And there's absolutely no utility in doing it that way. It obscures any possible interpretation, rather than aiding it.

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

I put the corresponding minor tickmarks alongside it, and estimated approximate values for each point:

This results in the following set of values. Obviously an imprecise reconstruction, but it gives a ballpark, and shows that the "fingerprints" are dissimilar:

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.

 

[Chew]

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

 

[Neil Pennington]

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

Current Science is a multidisciplinary journal and therefore research and review papers of general significance that are written clearly and well organized will be given preference. All papers, solicited and unsolicited, will be first assessed by a Reviewing Editor. Papers found unsuitable in terms of the overall requirements of the journal will be returned to the authors. The others will be sent for detailed review. Authors of these papers will be notified of acceptance, need for revision or rejection of the paper. It may be noted that papers once rejected cannot be resubmitted.

General articles [not exceeding 4000 words, 6 display items (tables and figures)] discuss current trends in research in a field that would be of interest to readers outside the field. These include interdisciplinary topics, science policy and science administration, some aspects of the application of science and technology to human needs or the impact of science and technology on society/ecosystems/life. The articles should include an abstract, introductory paragraph, brief subheads at appropriate places, illustrations that will help a general reader, and references.

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

What would you have to submit in order to get rejected?

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.

 

[deirdre]

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

Figures 1.7 , 1.8 , and 1.9 , August 24, 2014 photographs of the area of sky I regularly observe, show chemtrails, not contrails https://www.metabunk.org/j-marvin-h...-to-san-diego-city-council.t5598/#post-142711

but in this 'paper' he says it was taken August 8, 2014

 

[Belfrey]

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.

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.

 

[skephu]

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.

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.

 

[Belfrey]

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.

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.

 

[skephu]

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:

In the last 10 years, we've seen rain test samples escalate from 7 parts per billion (ppb) up to 3,450 ppb (in Mt. Shasta, CA). That's nearly a 50,000% increase in aluminum in the rain. (Dane Wigington)

 

[Mick West]

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

Scientific specialization can be like an edifice built on a corrupt foundation or the proverbial house of cards; standing seemingly sturdily or precariously for a while but becoming increasingly unviable with each new wing or addition. This has been the case, in my not-so-humble judgment, with the growth of geoscience. Geoscientists have steadfastly been building upon a half-century old misunderstanding of Earth's behavior which is considerably different from the behavior that is a consequence of Earth's early formation as a Jupiter-like gas giant. The ramifications are all about us, but none are as ubiquitous as the idea that increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are anthropogenic (human produced) and are causing global warming via the greenhouse effect.

Wigington
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/acid-seas/

So many are still claiming Co2 is great for the planet, the more the better they claim, but what planet are they talking about? Oceans are absorbing massive amounts of the excess Co2 that is now being pumped into the atmosphere at the rate of 100,000,000 tons a day. What is all this doing for the health of the seas? Nothing good. Earth's oceans are acidifying at a rate that is exponentially faster than any other time in the planet's history short of massive meteor impact. Acidification is not the only problem, the oceans are also warming at breakneck speed.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/haarp-still-stands-geoengineers-still-wreaking-havoc/

Anthropogenic decimation to the planet is immense and on too many fronts to list. 100,000,000 tons of Co2 are pumped into the atmosphere every day, forests cut down, etc.

So a kind of cherry picking appeal to false authority

 

[Neil Pennington]

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.

 

[Neil Pennington]

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.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

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:

In the last 10 years, we've seen rain test samples escalate from 7 parts per billion (ppb) up to 3,450 ppb (in Mt. Shasta, CA). That's nearly a 50,000% increase in aluminum in the rain. (Dane Wigington)

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/

 

[Neil Pennington]

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.

 

[skephu]

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.)

 

[skephu]

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.

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.

 

[Chew]

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.

 

[Mick West]

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:

I have lived in the same house since 1977 and viewed the same area of the sky nearly every day. After the morning marine layer burns off, the sky in San Diego, California, USA, has been often cloudless; rain is infrequent here. The air is warm and dry, not at all conducive for the formation of ice crystals from high-altitude jet aircraft exhaust. Since the spring of 2014, I observed that the common occurrence of toxic geoengineering trails in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), which mixes with the air we breathe, was increasing in frequency (Figures 1 and 2). By November 2014, the spraying from tanker-jet aircraft had become a near-daily occurrence, sometimes to the extent of causing the otherwise blue sky to be completely overcast with artificial clouds

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:

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.

 

[Mick West]

I have sent Herndon the following invitation:

Dr Herndon,

Your article on suspected geoengineering published in Current Science has prompted much discussion at Metabunk.org. In particular, one chart appears to be greatly in error as it simply shows the same data set flipped vertically and then offset.

[Broken External Image]:https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?u...s=1435337280992&rm=14e30c4ac3f434ba&zw&atsh=1



Would you possibly be interested in joining the conversation at Metabunk.org, to explain this, and other problems identified in your paper?
https://www.metabunk.org/j-marvin-herndons-geoengineering-article-in-current-science-india.t6456/

 

[Mick West]

Herdon's response:

There are no problems in said scientific paper. Moreover, the results have been confirmed and greatly extended. Your intense and consistent efforts to systematically discredit legitimate information related to an activity that I allege constitutes crimes against humanity, might at some point, I allege, be viewed as complicity. Do not contact me again.

 

[skephu]

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.