A skeptic physics professor at the University of Rochester who has published a series of papers over the years challenging various aspects of the proponent paradigm.
An Important Paper?
In 2009 he published a paper with R.S. Knox entitled Ocean Heat Content and Earth's Radiation Imbalance. According to to Roger Pielke Sr., it is "a very important new paper." To read it, click here.
Or is it more junk skeptic science?
According to Gavin Schmidt of Real Climate, Douglass' work doesn't even deserve to be published. Click here to find out why.
Who to believe?
So what is the layman (i.e., me) to think: Schmidt thinks Douglass' papers are incompetent. Pielke thinks they're important. And if it's true that in climatology a peer review is actually a pal review, then Who do you trust?
1. As Douglass is an AGW skeptic, he gets the mandatory SourceWatch entry. Click here to read it.