The guy isnt an astrophysist like you claim, he is an “astrometeorologist.sci”, an entirely different thing.
And what’s this post nominal “sci” ??
I think he’s implying it’s science, when it’s just plain imagination. The guy’s a fraud, you cannot apply his thinking to science, and it’s intellectually dishonest to do such a thing.
Fxd
Tempted to do a Bruce Francis on that piece of diatribe, but it’ll take too long and really I couldn’t be bothered.
The biggest load of nonsense, sentence after sentence I’ve read for a long time. Agonising.
This is precisely what I was talking about.
Dear Oona, the star of the JCU until the ■■■■ hit the fan.
Her previous work on micro-plastics in the food chain was completely discredited by a Swedish University because she had made the whole thing up.
Oona was one of the “scientists” that Peter Ridd criticised , took the university 5 minutes to fire him and 9 months to appoint a panel into Oona’s misconduct, the panel still has not been confirmed.
Oona the star climate scientist has now given it away and will no longer bother honest people.
A red-and-white striped lionfish at the Great Barrier Reef. Oona Lönnstedt’s work with the fish has come into question.
A collage of 50 lionfish was supposed to dampen questions over concerns around the academic rigour of former star James Cook University research student Oona Lonnstedt. Instead, the colourful photograph has prompted only more questions.
According to colleagues, Lonnstedt, who now lives in Sweden, no longer wants to be contacted about her research and, in fact, has abandoned her career in science. What she has left behind is a test case of how the science community deals with concerns about alleged malpractice when they are raised.
Veteran marine scientist Walter Starck, who received a PhD in marine science from the University of Miami in 1964, says the Lonnstedt affair is symptomatic of a new era.
Starck says generations of researchers have been schooled in a culture wherein threats to the Great Barrier Reef are an unquestionable belief from which all evidence is interpreted.
“She (Lonnstedt) got into the ocean acidification and global warming and the effect CO2 was going to have on the behaviour of marine animals and she started publishing,” Starck says.
“Immediately the publishers lapped it up. As a graduate student she managed to get as much published in one year as most professors do in a decade.”
Lonnstedt’s work is now being picked apart.
JCU says it has appointed an independent panel to investigate the lionfish study and remains “committed to the highest standards of ethical research”.
“The university takes seriously any allegation that a staff member or student has acted contrary to those standards,” a university spokesman says.
“An external panel will investigate research conducted by Oona Lonnstedt at JCU to determine whether there has been any research misconduct.”
Critics say JCU has been quick to talk but slow to act.
When concerns over Lonnstedt’s work were first raised in December 2017, JCU said “the university intends to review the PhD examiners’ report and determine whether any further investigation is required”.
Marine biologist Oona Lönnstedt, whose research has been called into question.
In May last year, JCU said it was establishing an external panel of experts to investigate.
This week, in response to questions from Inquirer, JCU said: “Membership of the external panel has been finalised. Panel members have accepted the role but have not yet been formally appointed.”
The lionfish affair was first raised when the prestigious journal Biology Letters confirmed it was investigating a discrepancy in the number of lionfish obtained by Lonnstedt at her research facility on Lizard Island in Queensland and the dozens of specimens supposedly used in her experiments.
The Biology Letters investigation followed a finding of “scientific dishonesty” about a 2016 research project conducted by Lonnstedt, this one in the Baltic Sea and showing small fish preferred to eat small pieces of plastic, less than 5mm in diameter, than their normal food, and this made them grow slowly and more likely to be eaten by predators.
Lonnstedt’s paper on the microplastic research was published in the journal Science but was retracted after an investigation by Sweden’s Central Ethical Review Board raised the possibility that some of the research described “was not conducted”. Although Lonnstedt and her co-author still strongly defend the paper, they say they decided to retract it. “Science has to rest on solid ground and the results of this study, even if they are correct, will not be trusted as long as a suspicion of misconduct remains,” they said in a statement to the journal Nature .
Marine Biologist Dr Walter Starck says the affair is symptomatic of the era. Photo: Cameron Laird
Before the microplastics study, Lonnstedt had been one of JCU’s most prolific authors before finishing her PhD studies at the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, publishing many high-profile papers on fish behaviour. One claimed that when damselfish live in degraded corals, which may be caused by climate change, they lose some of their sense of smell and become “fearless” and more subject to being eaten by predators. In another paper she looked at the effect of high concentrations of carbon dioxide on the ability of damselfish to respond to predators. Lonnstedt found they were likelier to be eaten by predators. Three of the most well-publicised environmental threats — reef degradation from climate change, changes in ocean’s acidity or alkalinity from carbon dioxide and the impact of microplastics — all, according to Lonnstedt’s work, cause little fish to be eaten by predators.
One paper has been proved to be incorrect because it was found Lonnstedt did not have time to undertake the research she claimed.
The microplastics finding raised questions about Lonnstedt’s other published work, in particular the finding about the behaviour of lionfish. Lonnstedt found lionfish can wave their fins at each other to communicate to go hunting in pairs and take turns in striking at their prey.
After the editors of Biology Letters issued a statement of concern early last year, Lonnstedt’s co-authors on the lionfish paper wrote a “correction”. Included in the correction was “a collage of 50 lionfish photographs providing evidence of the number of lionfish caught during the study”.
Montage of 50 lion fish used by academic Oona Lonnstedt to defend her research. Picture: Supplied
When it was posted, former JCU marine scientist Peter Ridd analysed the collage of images and found some striking results.
“The big question is how many different fish are in these pictures,” Ridd said. “A careful analysis of the pictures would indicate that it is probably far less than 50.”
By studying the metadata included in the original file names, Ridd has shown that when put into the order that the pictures were taken, it was clear that the same images had been mirror imaged, rotated or manipulated in other ways to appear to be different fish.
Ridd wrote to Lonnstedt’s co-authors alerting them to his discovery. He said the sheer number of problems, plus the manipulation of the images by mirror imaging and colour correction, “makes one wonder what is going on”.
Ridd said given that Lonnstedt had been shown to have deficient data in other research, and given that there seemed to be evidence of modified images, it would not be wise to give the benefit of the doubt in this case.
When put into the order that the pictures were taken, it was clear that the same images had been mirror imaged, rotated or manipulated in other ways to appear to be different fish, a JCU colleague found.
Rather than accept Ridd’s analysis, the co-authors replied that their correction to Biology Letters had been taken out of context by the journal.
“Based on our understanding, it was not her intent for the collage to represent a picture of all of the lionfish she used,” they said. Rather, she was providing it as evidence “that she had lionfish in the laboratory”, the co-authors said.
“Normally I would suggest that you contact Dr Lonnstedt for further clarification about this paper. However, I am led to believe that she has abandoned her career as a scientist,” co-author Doug Chivers said.
“We have been asked to stop contacting her with regards to this paper. This leaves us in a tough spot in not being able to answer questions adequately. We will discuss any future actions with the editor of Biology Letters .”
Summing up, Ridd says Lonnstedt has been asked to provide evidence of the number of fish.
“All she provides is a picture of 50 fish that she never actually specifically says are different, but any reasonable person would think that this was what she was implying,” Ridd says.
“For some reason these pictures are all mixed up, and some were modified in various ways. In the end we have no idea and, given her past record, I should have thought that the only way to proceed is for the paper to be withdrawn unless there is some other corroborative evidence, maybe from JCU, that she had the fish she claimed.”
Environment Editor
Sydney
Graham Lloyd is a fearless reporter of all sides of the environment debate. A former night editor, chief editorial writer and deputy business editor with The Australian, Graham has held senior positions nationa… Read more
Phew! So all that above, if I’m reading it right, means this whole climate thing was just a fad. I’ll get on the blower and tell grandad he’s just imagining he can’t breathe or get out of the house owing to the smoke from the 72 bushfires burning across Tassie in the last week. He reckons it’s never been like this but he’s an old dikk head and what would he know?
Anyways back to my house extension. I was going to start on the door frame but I keep fixating on this one whorl in the pine I chose, just doesn’t look right.
Oh, forgot to add, I’m a fearless reporter of what I do in my backyard and I’m known to complain equally about my neighbours on the right and the left even though my history clearly shows I traditionally go much easier on the left.
Ah, Graham Lloyd from The Australian taking information from Dr Wally Stark from The Homeland Institute. Good stuff. Lonnstead may well be guilty of dodgy research, I wouldn’t know. But one thing I do know is that I wouldn’t rely on either Graham or Wally for non biased commentary on anything.
It is hot today. Have both air conditioners on 18 at home.
And because of the smoke from the fires couldn’t even open the windows last night to let some cool air in.
Think I will melt when i go running at lunch.
I’m kind of confused.
Isn’t the point that other scientists in that field called out a fraud?
In conspiracy world, shouldn’t it have been either ignored or covered up?
It’s possible that I’m missing the point.
The point you are missing is that as one scientist has been exposed as a fraud, anthropogenic climate change doesn’t exist.
Well, possibly that was the point that was meant, but I still don’t get it.
Perhaps it was scientists paid by the plastics industry who first called this out (a couple of years ago)?
Looking, looking…
Nnnnnno. One of the original whistleblowers has done research on pollutants and the effect of rising CO2 on fisheses…
I am flummoxed.
You realise it was a sorfed post right?
I think that article was meant to demonstrate that all scientists are liars.
So,…what about the ones who called Lonnstedt out…? Well,…apart from that…
In the meantime the little cabal that the Libs handed half a billion to so they can fix (the image) of the reef have teamed up with AIMS for their first investigation of remote section of the reef. They even used a few hundred grand of their own money, coupled with another grant (??!!) to pay for it. Still no explanation for why AIMS couldn’t have simply received the funding to do what they do, or another actual, non commercially interested, scientific research entity within or without govt.
Having worked closely with Universities around the World for over 40 years and having sponsored 11 PhD Theses and numerous Post-Doc Research, fraud within the scientific community is not common but exists. Some of it is deliberate and criminal, while some is due to incompetence and lack of governance.
I have been a critic of the funding systems that apply and pressure can be extreme to get results. I admit that we put pressure on our researchers for results for commercial reasons, but we would never condone or support any false results or reports.
And quite simply sorfed, this example just shows that the scientific community does find out the cheats and while there are only a few, all published work does get much intense scrutiny. Most academics yearn to prove the other boffin wrong, so keep trolling and find the next one.
And you think it was hot last week.
You do know this first 20 days in Bourke this year has been hotter than that
In January 1896 they had 107.4 F average or 41.8c
Current month up to January 20 is 42.3 c or 108.4 F
Considering they are forcast to average 42.7 for the rest of the month they around to have averaged 108.7 for the month.
Please continue to be a ■■■■■■■■ for our amusement.
Confirmed troll Sorfed.
So…we’re just moving on to ‘Bourke had a hot month 120 years ago?’
Okay.
Well, bugger me, I would not have thought Bourke ever had a heat wave before 1980.
This is an astounding fact.
Hobart completely covered in heavy smoke today according to Grandad. Headaches, low visibility, everything reeks.
