Lisa, where did he post that? I don't see it on his Facebook page.Interesting update
Lisa, where did he post that? I don't see it on his Facebook page.Interesting update
Interesting. A shame, though, that your rebuttal to Herndon's paper will not be published. It would have been nice if they had also published his accusations that you are a CIA agent - that sort of thing would surely do more to discredit him than simple scientific rebuttal!I first wrote Dr Herndon, pointing out the flaws in his paper. He didn't reply. Then I sent the same comments to the editor, recommending the withdrawal of the paper. He refused, claiming that the paper was peer reviewed by an editor who is a good geochemist. Instead, he sent my comments to dr Herndon for an answer. He actually wrote a lengthy answer, which also included his suspicions that I am a CIA disinformation agent. Then I received an email from the editor that my submission was accepted and will be published along with Dr. Herndon's reply. This I refused, as my email was not intended for publication.
Yes, I thought it probably was you while cycling to work. But you have confessed before I got there (and checked my inbox)OK here's a confession for you guys. It's me.
Why not write one which you would release for publication?I first wrote Dr Herndon, pointing out the flaws in his paper. He didn't reply. Then I sent the same comments to the editor, recommending the withdrawal of the paper. He refused, claiming that the paper was peer reviewed by an editor who is a good geochemist. Instead, he sent my comments to dr Herndon for an answer. He actually wrote a lengthy answer, which also included his suspicions that I am a CIA disinformation agent. Then I received an email from the editor that my submission was accepted and will be published along with Dr. Herndon's reply. This I refused, as my email was not intended for publication.
I know a geochemist who may be interested in writing a rebuttal, so that may happen.Why not write one which you would release for publication?
It may mean nothing. MDPI invites distinguished scientists as editors, who then don't do any actual work for the journal. See from the same link as my previous post:My main concern is that the Academic Editor (of the paper?) Paul B. Tchounwou is a distinguished scientist, a recent AAAS awardee:
http://www.aaas.org/news/2013-aaas-mentor-award-goes-paul-b-tchounwou-jackson-state-university
Basically, the average compositon of Earth's crust also has the same "signature" by these criteria.In what world are these element ratios even remotely similar???
View attachment 14360
Bear in mind that the horizontal axis on the chart has a logarithmic scale - a deliberate attempt to make the ratios seem more similar. But even with the log scale, the ratios are wildly different.
He does know, he lists it on his web site:Also, he may not even know he's an editor:
Maybe more likely the "community evaluator" mentioned at the bottom of this page?Herndon acknowledged Ian Baldwin "for many helpful discussions, criticisms, and advice". I hope that this is not the Ian T. Baldwin, a very respected scientist.
F/B, I will see if I archived it, I have a friend...Lisa, where did he post that? I don't see it on his Facebook page.
Hell Mick, why not work on a collaborative paper for submission?We should write a summary post to go at the top of this thread, and covering both papers. I'll start it here for now (in my next post) and solicit corrections/suggestions.
i wouldnt worry about it. if people want to see it for themselves they can friend him.F/B, I will see if I archived it, I have a friend...
p.s. It is from Facebook but it is not public and it won't let me archive. Any suggestions on how to archive it anyone?
Here are the Al, Ba, and Sr leachate numbers for the 23 sites reported in Moreno et al (2005). I converted units between micrograms and nanograms as appropriate, and calculated the ratios:I'll post the numbers after I go through it again.
Why do you think so? They seem correct to me.First of all, his Sr/Al and Ba/Al ratios that he shows for the Moreno leachate data are, again, way off.
Exactly. It is not even possible to prove by statistics that two means or variances are equal. It is only possible to show that the difference is below some threshold.Second of all, when he says that "At a 99% confidence interval, the two sets of data have the same mean (T-test)," that is also misleading. The T-test is a test for significant difference, not significant sameness.
He neatly sidesteps the control issue (at least in terms of "contaminated" vs "non-contaminated" rainfall)...Exactly. It is not even possible to prove by statistics that two means or variances are equal. It is only possible to show that the difference is below some threshold.
Herndon's statistical analysis is fundamentally flawed. It's even worse that the 99% confidence interval he used was translated by Dane Wigington into a statement that it was shown with 99% certainty that they spray coal fly ash.
Also, what is badly missing in Herndon's analysis is the use of any kind of control. If he wants to show that there is coal fly ash in the rain, it's not enough to compare the rain with coal fly ash. He should have compared the rain composition with a number of other substances of geological origin, and then show that coal fly ash is the closest in composition to the rain. Without control, the analysis is invalid.
Too bad nowadays anyone can publish any rubbish because so-called "open access" journals will publish anything for the money.
It looks to me like he took the mean value for each element across all 23 sites, and then divided mean Ba and Sr by mean Al to get his ratios. But that's the ratio of the means, not the mean of the ratios. There is a difference, and unless I've miscalculated in the spreadsheet I posted, it changes the result by two orders of magnitude. Edit: And presumably he would have used the individual site/sample ratios for any statistical test...Why do you think so? They seem correct to me.
I've seen it many times. They say they tested something "...after a heavy spray day...", but when I ask about a test done BEFORE spraying, they never have one.He neatly sidesteps the control issue (at least in terms of "contaminated" vs "non-contaminated" rainfall)...
here are several tests predating the 1997 inception of the chemtrails hoax:I've seen it many times. They say they tested something "...after a heavy spray day...", but when I ask about a test done BEFORE spraying, they never have one.
Yes, I think he shows the ratios of the means in the figures.It looks to me like he took the mean value for each element across all 23 sites, and then divided mean Ba and Sr by mean Al to get his ratios. But that's the ratio of the means, not the mean of the ratios. There is a difference, and unless I've miscalculated in the spreadsheet I posted, it changes the result by two orders of magnitude. Edit: And presumably he would have used the individual site/sample ratios for any statistical test...
IMHO that is the proof of the pudding. The logistic trail is enormous. How many locations, how many aircraft, how many crew members. How many people to load, transport and secure operations. How to keep everyone quiet and paid. Just to mention a few difficult issues.People who come up with these things never really think through the implications of their ideas.
No and that was the first thing I was looking for when I read his paper earlier.Did Herndon ever specify how the ash was transported, loaded and injected into the troposphere? Seems like an enormous physical operation. Seem there would be some minimal gesture to investigate just how this is accomplished worldwide.
I had a gander at this article about a paper which was published by another one of the MDPI family of journals which published Herndon's article.
No and that was the first thing I was looking for when I read his paper earlier.
It is interesting that he only "began to notice" traile in spring of 2014. Supposedly the "program" has been going on for how long? Some people say the 50s, some the 90s.