You have not read the first chapter of my book. You have read a chapter of my book, the fourth.
Neither of these facts is controversial or difficult to locate.In this one instance I have done your homework for you, but will decline future requests.
Harold's quip that he's done my homework for me doesn't quite hit home. A claim that runs contrary to conventional wisdom needs to be supported by the author, so discovery of that support is Harold's homework not mine. And I have to suggest Harold's indication that he will decline future requests is not irritability, it's because Harold is unable to support all his claims. And Harold knows it.
So let's look at how he supports his claims. I wrote to Harold "I was intrigued by your statement about Antarctica that "the record maximum value for the ice occurred in 2007." Please could you tell me where did this fact come from? What do you mean by value, coverage or volume or some other measure ?" And his response is to cite this graph. I note that Skeptical Science has an answer to that point, but let's move on.
Harold's book also contains these words "One day, anywhere from ten years from now to 10,000 years from now, the inevitable slide back into full glaciation will occur" I asked Harold how he arrived at his estimate that the next ice age could could be due as soon as 'ten years from now' ? His response is Petit et al. 1999. From the abstract of Petit we can see that it is a reading of the Vostok Ice Core, observational, not predictive. Petit et al 1999 does not support Ambler's assertion that the next ice age could begin as soon as ten years from now.
This is exactly what skeptics should be looking for. Climate change alarmism, based on misrepresentation of science.
Earth to Harold : You're entitled to your own opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts.
I should add that so called skeptics like Watts and Montford have both puffed Harold's book lending credence to pseudoscience again. And unsupported pseudoscience at that.