Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Iowa State AIDS Researcher Admits To Falsifying Findings

Posted by timothy on from the seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time dept.

theodp writes "'With countless lives depending on their work,' writes Brett Smith, 'it seems unthinkable that AIDS researchers might falsify their work. However, that's just what Iowa State University assistant professor Dong-Pyou Han has admitted to, according to federal documents.' Han resigned from the project in October after admitting to tampering with samples to give the appearance that an experimental vaccine was causing lab animals to build up protections against HIV. According to the NIH, Han apparently spiked rabbit blood with human blood components from people whose bodies had produced antibodies to HIV. 'This positive result was striking, and it caught everybody's attention,' said the NIH. However, researchers at other institutions became suspicious after they were unsuccessful in duplicating the ISU results. The Iowa State AIDS research project had been awarded $19 million in federal grants over the past several years. Han has agreed to be banned from participating in any federally-financed research for three years."

61 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. Poor Han by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Han has agreed to be banned from participating in any federally-financed research for three years.

    That's it? I would expect a little more than a slap on the wrist.

    1. Re:Poor Han by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 2

      In contrast, teenagers that break windows with a total worth of $550 get felony jail time.

    2. Re:Poor Han by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      He will, however, be the darling of pharmaceutical and private medical clinics for his research methodologies.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    3. Re:Poor Han by Lumpy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Poor people MUST be punished to the extent of the law.

      If you think there is anything "fair" in justice, then you are incredibly Naive.

      If you are rich you get away with nearly anything, if you have the ability to fight back they tend to not push you into the ground as hard. But if you are poor and stole a loaf of bread? Expect the death penalty.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Poor Han by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      In China, he'd probably get a bullet. (Or perhaps not, it's possible that scientists could get a pass there, unlike more ordinary embezzlers.)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Poor Han by jo_ham · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's really cute that you think academic research-based scientists are rich.

      Is this overspill from the whole "climate change is just a cover for scientists to get rich off the back of lucrative grants" stuff?

    6. Re:Poor Han by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not. After this no one will touch him; his career as a researcher is over. For professors, three years of no federal grants is generally enough to kill the entire lab, and a three-year lapse in publishing is enough to kill any career on its own, with the possible exception of the most hard-boiled tenure.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    7. Re:Poor Han by Sarius64 · · Score: 2

      Because the evidence shows that scientists have no bias, are moral, and simply throw money from grants to the poor street rats when they receive it. /sarcasm

    8. Re:Poor Han by fuzznutz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Principal investigators are paid fairly well. Research assistants and technicians might not. A good PI brings in millions of dollars to a state university and that is how they fill those budget voids. Our research overhead is 55%. That is money taken right off the top for the privilege of working in a university owned lab building. All equipment and supplies come out of the rest. Those grants need a good PI name to get funded.

    9. Re:Poor Han by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      I am also funded out of such a grant (and the PI is my direct supervisor), but my point was that in the context of this discussion, the oft-repeated cliche that poor people are subject to different rules to rich people is somewhat affected by the fact that very few scientists are rich. Especially research scientists.

      When that trope is commonly used, the difference in wealth is usually poor person vs investment banker/senator/etc. By that standard, we're nowhere on the curve.

    10. Re:Poor Han by the+gnat · · Score: 2

      It's not. After this no one will touch him; his career as a researcher is over. For professors, three years of no federal grants is generally enough to kill the entire lab, and a three-year lapse in publishing is enough to kill any career on its own, with the possible exception of the most hard-boiled tenure.

      True, but he attempted (?) to defraud the federal government out of several million dollars. If you tried that with Medicaid, you'd go to jail. On the other hand, considering that our jails are already packed full and seem to encourage rather than prevent recidivism, there is a strong case to be made that simply destroying this asswipe's scientific career is a more effective and efficient punishment than locking him up with "blue-collar" criminals at the cost of $20,000-plus per year. It sure does seem unfair to the poor losers who got stuck with mandatory minimum sentences for petty drug crimes, though.

    11. Re:Poor Han by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      For proof of that just look at how McAfee was treated like a celeb after spending the weeks leading up to the murder of his neighbor in a drug fueled haze banging underage girls and championing bath salts, all evidence points to him killing the father of three but is treated like a hero? Or the IIRC DuPont heir that managed to get acquitted of murder even though he had the decapitated head in a bowling bag in his closet. I mean for fucks sake, he had a HUMAN HEAD in his fricking closet! What does the guy have to do, upload a "Here is how you kill those you don't like using my ex wives as examples" to FB or something?

      This guy cost millions that could have gone to drugs that showed REAL promise and the fact that all he got was a lousy 3 year ban just shows how completely fucked up and frankly worthless scientific research is ATM. I mean what incentive do they have not to falsify results or insure the results are what momma gov or corp wants to hear when the worst they'l get is a slap on the wrist if they get caught and if they don't its a million dollar gravy train? With so little consequences for faking I honestly wouldn't be surprised to find more new articles with iffy data than without, there is just no reason not to and millions of reasons in favor.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    12. Re:Poor Han by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Well, it's sort of complicated.

      On one hand—it's probably worth pointing out that the American punitive system is absolutely insane, and the mildness of this should not be taken as evidence of a defective process simply because it doesn't follow suit. Indeed, there are some fairly involved legal and philosophical reasons as to why the punishments aren't more extreme. Here is a paper on it. (I haven't read all of it, but it seems sensible enough from the first few pages.) One of the key points is that a lot of money goes down the toilet on dead ends and genuine errors anyway; another is that scientific misconduct isn't actually illegal, so the power of funding bodies to defend themselves is somewhat limited. In the end, the top priority is still getting them out of science.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    13. Re:Poor Han by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well.. some of 'em are...

      because they double dip for funding from both meds corps and the state.. the bigger the studies expenses, the bigger their cut.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    14. Re:Poor Han by goarilla · · Score: 1

      Compared to Iraq, Libya was a big success.

  2. The university should have to pay back the grants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...and that kid barred from practicing medicine or research EVER. Getting caught cheating in a professional field where people's lives are at state should be a capitol offense.

  3. Unsurprising. by marcello_dl · · Score: 1, Troll

    It is the same society, or should I say global system of power, which features:
    - pollution for a theoretically and practically impossible continuous growth model;
    - introduction of new substances with incomplete testing;
    - laws against honest labelling...

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  4. Unconscionable by MirandaRhys-Jones · · Score: 2

    ISU cannot afford to allow such a small punishment for a breach in their scientific intergrity. Oh no, no government funded research projects for three years. How about ever? And a requirement to disclose this information before taking any position. Peoples lives depend on this research. Maybe false hope is better than no hope to the average person, but that doesn't fly in science.

    1. Re:Unconscionable by jma05 · · Score: 3

      It likely that this is just a standard procedure which fits the general category. Since this is pretty eggregious, I doubt that he will ever get a research grant again. For one, he will need to be a part of a research institution to get a grant. Which research university will hire him now, given the competitiveness of these positions? He might be able able to teach in some low level place, but his research career has ended.

    2. Re:Unconscionable by jovius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, surely lives should not depend on unverified and non-peer reviewed research as the summary sensationally implies. Because of the due process the falsified results were revealed before any actual danger. Most likely the falsified results were also publicized for immediate consumption well before any verification, which actually created new ground for false hopes.

    3. Re:Unconscionable by MonsterMasher · · Score: 2

      You would have a different point of view if you were in the labs that took the risks to check, in hopes of being early publishers. We are talking Post-docs who every minute spent on wasted time is that far behind on the next possible position. Or is your time that valueless that this concept is difficult.
      Society and science wins in the end - of course, but like war - there really is no winners when it comes to parent-less or destroyed families.
      Let's open our perspective to include the little guys.. cause if you do that, you might find yourself valued in your evaluations, and maybe value others as well.

    4. Re:Unconscionable by sjames · · Score: 1

      Lives depend on it because they need a successful cure. Fraud like this siphons off research money that might lead to the cure and puts it in the hands of people who produce only fraud.

  5. Wait, 3-year ban? by Ecuador · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For many researches it takes more than 3-years to get a federal grant (if they don't falsify results that is), how is a 3-year ban from federally-financed research any sort of punishment for such dishonesty?

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Wait, 3-year ban? by martinux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a defacto lifetime ban. Short of moving to another country he will have the stigma of this for as long as he tries to get a job in science. Any research he previously reported will now be subject to significant scrutiny.

      Just imagine him, or anyone attached to a group he's attached to, trying to get future federal funding; "We've decided to turn down your application for [insert any reason]."

      He's now a liability to any university or research group. The only people who might hire him are some unscrupulous company who need a yes-man who will provide 'sympathetic' findings. Even then the work will most likely be under a pseudonym and will have to survive all of the extra scrutiny a 'sponsored' research study gets.

      Thankfully, science is a self-correcting mechanism as this uncovering has demonstrated.

    2. Re:Wait, 3-year ban? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It doesn't take 3 years to get a grant accepted, it takes 3 years to fail to get a grant a few times before it is accepted. Also, 3 year ban basically wipes out any of the current students that the researcher may be working with, forcing them to start with a clean slate.

    3. Re:Wait, 3-year ban? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that his academic career is over but he has a bright future in industry "research"?

    4. Re:Wait, 3-year ban? by sirambrose · · Score: 1

      I think most researchers usually start submitting grant proposals 3 years before their previous grants run out to ensure continuous research funding. The researcher in this article already had federal grants, which have now been revoked. The 3 year ban on participating in federally funded research will ensure that the researcher will not be able to get any new grants to replace the funding that was just revoked.

    5. Re:Wait, 3-year ban? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2

      It's a defacto lifetime ban.

      Absolutely. No matter how he spins this, everyone will know Han shot first.

    6. Re:Wait, 3-year ban? by martinux · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would agree to an extent that quantity of research is being pushed as the be all and end all (as Prof. Higgs lamented). In the UK people are attending university to get a sheet of paper that proves their marketability. There are an increasing number of 'fluff' degrees requiring an increasing number of lecturers who can teach 'fluff' who are being pushed to prove that their fluff not only is valuable fluff but is the best fluff by the accountants and marketers running the universities. As a result you get researchers pushing out reams of crap in journals with low impacts simply to give the illusion of productivity and allow marketers to print a long list of studies beside their photos in university profile pages.

      The knock on result is that all researchers are being pressured to publish an equivalent number of papers as anything less just proves they're lazy and unproductive in comparison to the fluff producers by bureaucrats who equate all studies as equal.

      You're nodding along with me now as I'm painting a pretty bleak picture that agrees with your assessment. However, your blanket statement that nobody cares about research quality is profoundly incorrect. I know many many scientists who get their work done despite the aforementioned pressures and who 'care'. I know it's easy to tar everyone with the same brush but many of us are still doing science because we want to learn and report new things.

      Taking a cynical view is easy but as TFA points out, there are more than enough people that care ensuring that fabrications are discovered.

    7. Re:Wait, 3-year ban? by mark-t · · Score: 2

      I'm reminded of a saying... "justice without mercy is tyranny".

      I agree there needs to be a penalty, but in the end, this was caused only by very poor judgement on his part about what is really important. I'm not saying he should just be let off without penalty, only that while trying to carry out an appropriate punishment, that room for eventual forgiveness be present.

      That said, I think that the ban should be long enough that when he's allowed to try to do it again, he'll basically be starting from zero, and he's going to have to work for at least just as long as he did before just to get back to where he already was. To that end, I'd suggest that a decade may be more apt than just 3 years.

      Hopefully, he will have learned his lesson by that time. If he does it again, I could probably abide a lifetime ban.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    8. Re:Wait, 3-year ban? by iroll · · Score: 1

      The ban is for participating. He will certainly never be awarded a grant as a principle investigator ever again, which has already crippled his career. At best, in the future, he might be able to limp along somewhere as a second-rung researcher.

      What this means he can't work for any federally-financed research in any capacity (as an employee, collaborator, in-kind supporter, etc.) for three years. Since pretty much all research in his field includes some federal component, that's a three year exile from his entire career, and about as close as you can get to a career death sentence.

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    9. Re:Wait, 3-year ban? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I work in private industry, just like most scientists. We wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole.

    10. Re:Wait, 3-year ban? by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      Since pretty much all research in his field includes some federal component, that's a three year exile from his entire career, and about as close as you can get to a career death sentence.

      And since pretty much any prospective employer is going to find out about this, even the privately-funded research groups will treat him like he's radioactive.

    11. Re:Wait, 3-year ban? by martinux · · Score: 2

      Given that you consider all scientists and the peer review process to be entirely corrupt who would you trust to be knowledgable and honest enough to sit on this 'Truth Panel'?

      I'm not sure if you're a troll or you are just deeply cynical. I just hope that at some point you recognise that we all have an inbuilt bias to inflate the effect of negative aspects of reality and miss the positives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias. Then again, I can see the benefits of being a pessimist: You're going to swing between being either correct or pleasantly surprised.

  6. shame shame shame by blooddiamond · · Score: 2, Insightful

    sounds like a conspiracy to me. There has to be more to this story than just a professor doug tampering with samples and resigning

  7. Re:The university should have to pay back the gran by Coeurderoy · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...Getting caught cheating in a professional field where people's lives are at state should be a capitol offense.

    You got that right, this is the kind of offense regularly done at the Capitol..
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol

  8. Not all Koreans cheat by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Dr. Dong-Pyou Han is a Korean.

    He cheated.

    So was Dr. Woo-suk Hwang, who fake the data on cloning back in 2006.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-suk

    Koreans can never be trusted.

    Never !

    While it's true that both Dr. Hwang and Dr. Han are Koreans, not all Koreans are cheaters.

    Similarly, not all non-Koreans are non-cheaters either.

    But I sense something terribly wrong in the set-up at Iowa State U.

    You see, Dr. Han's immediate superior is Dr. Michael Cho, and as the supervisor of Dr. Han, Dr. Cho has failed to keep a close eyes on the researches being carried out by his subordinates.

    And while Dr. Han has had his wrist slightly slapped (only ban for 3 year). Dr. Cho, the boss, never was reprimanded for his own dereliction of duty.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  9. Han may sounds Asian ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    But "Han Dong Pyou" is not a Chinese.

    Chinese names do not have any spelling that even approaching "pyou".

    I am a Chinese, I know.

    BTW, I never cheat in my study. I don't have to.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  10. What about the $ 19 million ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    Calling it "fraud" is a stretch. Saying "potentially endangered lives" is a wildly fanciful leap of hyperbole.

    While I agree that what Dr. Han did was not "endangering lives", you gotta tell us what about the $19 million grant that he got because he falsified his test data ?

    Dr. Han has cheated. No matter how high that guy has achieved in his academic study, he has failed something much more important than scholarly status - he does not have even one iota of moral cell in his body.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  11. He should be in jail by acoustix · · Score: 2

    He basically stole $19M. That's $19M that could have been used for *real* research to help people.

    He's a piece of crap.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    1. Re:He should be in jail by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Reading the article he was just one member of the team. It seems like he has fallen on his sword and taken full blame to protect the school administrators and other members of the team. It also seems like investigators are suspicious of these.

      This of course is the inevitable result of pushing too much competition in research, where the reality is negative results and as necessary and positive results in achieving the final solution but right wing knee jerk thinking demands only positive profitable results.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:He should be in jail by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      The person with results is the criminal but the other one is not?

      If you can guarantee a result it's not research.

  12. This problem is more common than you think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    in 2009, the FDA paid for a test on electronic cigarettes. The test came back screaming formaldehyde, acrolein and heavy metals. What the public later found out, the tests were done on dry e-cig cartridges (ie: no liquid was used, so the cartridges burned up), but to this date, the FDA claims that "they don't know what's in them". The recent CDC study on teen e-cig use is also as equally flawed.

  13. Re:Han? by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    academic dishonesty is treated as an entitlement among the wealthy in all countries. you won't really think all those senator's sons really have what it takes to graduate from Harvard do you?

    (well technically they do, #define what_it_takes Daddys_money_buying_a_new_gym)

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  14. Segue to an older topic by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many peer reviewed papers he has had published?

  15. Criminal fraud? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't understand why he's not being charged with criminal fraud.

    1. Re:Criminal fraud? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. With the light slap on the wrist he got, he is free to commit more fraud soon, with better technique this time.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  16. No Deposit, No Return? by magusxxx · · Score: 1

    Didn't they also get 'more' money to continue the research? If so, when are they going to give it back? In another article I read on this it stated to the effect, "It's not customary for universities to return such funds." I also found this quote interesting... “As a matter of fact, I think the team came up with more novel ideas during the past four months than the past four years I have been at Iowa State University,” Cho wrote. Translation: "Han's work got us the money, but we weren't counting on him to bring us a win."

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  17. From the summary... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    The Iowa State AIDS research project had been awarded $19 million in federal grants over the past several years.

    There's money in it for someone. And plenty of it.
    "Iowa State University assistant professor Dong-Pyou Han" may not have the money for fancy lawyers but "Iowa State AIDS research project" or the "Iowa State University" most probably have some on they payrolls.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:From the summary... by the+gnat · · Score: 2

      "Iowa State University assistant professor Dong-Pyou Han" may not have the money for fancy lawyers but "Iowa State AIDS research project" or the "Iowa State University" most probably have some on they payrolls.

      Correct, and ISU would much rather see headlines that say "ISU researcher barred from seeking federal grants for three years" than "ISU researcher sentenced to five years in jail for fraud."

      I'm not sure why people don't actually go to jail for this, other than the fact that the NIH can't actually bring charges to court, only apply sanctions w.r.t. grant applications; criminal charges would require that the DOJ get involved. For what it's worth, most scientists I know (myself included) think that the NIH is far too lenient with scientists found guilty of willful fraud. I would make it a lifetime ban.

  18. Re:Not humans, Koreans ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Would you like a list of Americans, English, Germans, French, Spanish, etc who have falsified data as well? Guess you can't trust anyone without their results being reproducable.

    If only we had a method for that..

  19. Re:small potato by riverat1 · · Score: 2

    LOL, what is shows is you can't get away with cheating in science in the long run. There is always the underlying reality that will catch up to you sooner or later. The fact that in 20+ years no one has been able to show any substantial fraud in climate research means you aren't likely to find any. The thought that all of the thousands of climate researchers are in on a multi-decade conspiracy to hide the truth is ludicrous. It puts you firmly in the camp of conspiracy theorists.

  20. Re:The university should have to pay back the gran by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    ...and that kid barred from practicing medicine or research EVER. Getting caught cheating in a professional field where people's lives are at state should be a capitol offense.

    Or just give him AIDS and let him decide if he wants to fuck with the research again.
    [Sorry, that was really mean.]

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  21. Re:small potato by riverat1 · · Score: 2

    If you have secret information that it's going to as you say "really start to chill out ca 2020" you should publish it so we can all see it. So far geophysical reality is not cooperating with your hypothesis. Climate scientists may be wrong about some things but if they are they're honestly wrong, not deliberately falsifying their work. With the scrutiny climate science has been getting over the past 20+ years if there was some fundamental problem with it we would have found it. Climate scientists may be wrong about some things but if they are they're honestly wrong not deliberately falsifying evidence.

  22. Re:small potato by riverat1 · · Score: 2

    That's another LOL. I presume you're talking about the controversy over the Soon & Baliunas paper published in the journal Climate Research in 2003. That paper has methodological flaws that should have been caught in review and weren't. They used precipitation and drought proxies without assessing their temperature sensitivity and conflating regional temperature change proxies with global changes. Even the publisher of Climate research admitted as much. Five editors resigned from the journal rather than remain associated with such shoddy journalism. Climate scientist were protecting the integrity of the peer review process by calling out a failure in it.

  23. Re:Evolutionary behaviour by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Adequate would be
    1. Firing from his job
    2. Removal of his Ph.D. due to severe scientific misconduct
    3. Retraction of all related publications

    Yes, harsh, but what he did is about the worst thing a scientist can do.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  24. Re:small potato by sjames · · Score: 2

    If you have done credible research with a natural conclusion against the current consensus, you get to call yourself a heretic. If you can at least show why there is legitimate doubt about the current consensus you might just qualify as an ultra-conservative or naysayer. Otherwise you're pure psycho-ceramic.

  25. re:small potato by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    They are wrong about a lot of things. One of the most important aspects of science and integrity is realizing and admitting when a model is busted. After 15-20 years, the GW temperature predictions are rapidly falling out of the 95% interval, even at solar max. You might do more reading of the critics and emergent models.

    Mostly the GW "cognoscenti" have withheld physical evidence and records (see ClimateAudit), fudged data (increasingly funky "adjustments"), done poor stats, ignored critics, shepherded reviews, and engaged in wholesale ad hominem, with enforcers like the Piltdown Mann. And many, like Algore have made fraudlent fortunes - fun and profit.

  26. Re:So what does that mean? by russotto · · Score: 1

    You do not have to fall very far to be able to predict with reasonable accuracy what your destination will be and when you'll get there, even though it's a blink in time.

    Simple extrapolation based on a small amount of data doesn't always work so well. Ask any bungee jumper.

  27. Re:small potato by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    If you think the global climate models are "busted" then it probably has more with your lack of understanding of what climate models are designed to do than it has with any failure of the models themselves. For instance many say the climate models haven't predicted the slow down in atmospheric warming since 1998. But climate models are not (and probably cannot be) designed to predict the unpredictable natural variations such as ENSO and volcanic eruptions. They aren't expected to predict climate on that short a time scale and it you think they should the problem is with your expectations.

    I checked ClimateAudit out some when I first heard about it (years ago) but I just find it a font of misinformation. If you want to cite something I'd actually go read try Dr. Roy Spencer. At least he has the scientific knowledge to be coherent in what he writes.

  28. setting the record straight by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    "In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged as considerably smaller than many had expected. We investigate whether this can be explained by contemporary climate change scenarios. In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period that indicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level. "

    Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming?

    Hans von Storch, Armineh Barkhordarian, Klaus Hasselmannand Eduardo Zorita Institute for Coastal Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Geesthacht, Germany(2) Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany