the study is published online in the Journal of Climatology, but it may be easier to download the .pdf
http://www.uah.edu/News/pdf/climatemodel.pdf
As you've pointed out, RealClimate.org has chosen to debunk the Douglass et al study. "A Comparison of Tropical Temperature Trends With Model Predictions"
http://uahnews.uah.edu/newsread.php?newsID=994
It's a rebuttal I was eager to see, yet I'm seriously disappointed. I replied on RealClimate.org with this comment earlier...
"Gavin, did you write this? I find it intriguing that, as others have noted, there's no byline for this analysis. Any reasonable person would expect that if you're the author, you would stand behind this review. I hope you'll take the opportunity to correct this oversight. While I'm an avid reader of this blog, and inclined to support you, it certainly undermines your credibility.
"Several statements you've made here suggest either a stunning lack of familiarity with the actual mathematics of climate science or a willingness to knowingly misrepresent the data.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...#comment-75916
"I'm even further mystified by your acknowledgement that you had to manipulate the data set to prove Douglass et al wrong.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...#comment-75862
"Outside of the scientific review process there is no way to evaluate the merit of this post or its challenge to the study published in the Journal of Climatology. You've already written about the flaws in peer review, but to be accepted by science an idea has to survive rigorous scrutiny by the professional scientific community. The results need to be verified independently. Without this process, there is really no way to evaluate a scientific theory. Oddly, you have declined to submit your ideas to the court of scientific inquiry. Instead, you've taken this challenge right to the public where there is little chance for criticism except perhaps on Internet forums. It makes the rest of us who cite any of this work look bad.
"To help us regain a small shred of relevance to the AGW debate, may I politely suggest you submit your criticism for peer review, preferably to the International Journal of Climatology, and allow it to withstand scrutiny there?"
Sadly, it's unlikely that comment will make it past moderation.
I'm sure everyone reading this blog agrees: Anthropogenic Global Warming is a serious issue. It deserves sober, objective scientific study. Before any of us go about citing RealClimate.org on this one, please be aware: There's a reason Gavin doesn't take credit for his work. If you follow carefully, it just doesn't make sense.
A lot of people go to sites like RealClimate.org for objective, verifiable science. Unfortunately, after reading some of the careless work they've recently published as "scientific studies" I'm left with more questions than answers.