I am a lifelong environmentalist who reveres natural creation, particularly the oceans and the skies above our gorgeous planet. I received my journalism training at The New Yorker, where I worked for six years. My writing has appeared in The National Review Online, The New York Daily News, The Wall Street JournalThe Huffington PostThe AtlanticWireThe Berkeley Daily Planet, The Providence JournalProvidence Business News, and wattsupwiththat.comI live in Rhode Island with my wife and two daughters.

22 Responses to About

  1. Don Andersen says:

    No offence intended, just a humble suggestion from an ex teacher:

    A couple of spaces – instead of one space – after your full stops would make the blog more readable. I think it is the font used on the blog that is at fault … some full stops appear to have almost no white space following them.


  2. 1LT Ryan Welch says:

    I found this site from another site. I really appreciate your comments and especially your willingness to debate the “Warmists.” I too am a Global Warming skeptic from Texas although I have no degree in any of the associated science fields. I am working on preparing a presentation to help debunk the Global Warming myth in my area and I was wondering if you have any suggestions or if you might be willing to give some advice. Thanks.

    • Harold Ambler says:

      It is a little bit surprising that the AGWers have gotten any traction off the expression “climate change,” which is redundant and, to take it further, a well-cloaked lie. Like weather, climate changes at all times — it’s just bigger patterns that are shifting.

      The next time someone tells you, “No, you’re wrong, the cooling is proof of warming and anyway it’s ‘climate change’ now get with the program,” feel free to alert them to the fact that they are using a nonsensical expression!

      Anyway, that’s what I do. I hope that you will also direct your friends to this site. Thanks for the comment!

  3. Mark Joyner says:

    Mr. Ambler,
    I recently attended a national conference on climate change and the oceans at which the focus was on rising levels of CO2 and the resulting acidification of the oceans. This is reportedly occurring at a rate much higher than previously predicted, with consequences for coral reefs and marine ecosystems worldwide. I’d be most interested in your thoughts on this subject, or perhaps you’ve already addressed this particular issue.

    • Harold Ambler says:

      Hi Mark. Thanks for the comment. I have been concerned about acidification, and I have done some research into it. Coral has thrived previously when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were ten times higher than that of today. My view is that coral is threatened via multiple environmental stressors (dumping of bilge from cruise ships, fertilizer, overfishing, dynamiting by fishermen, and on and on). I consider “acidification” (for, in fact, the seas are becoming very slightly less basic, well within modulations seen on a geologic baseline) to be, sadly, another effort to induce guilt, shame, and horror among the general population. Replanted coral in Sumatra following the 2004 tsunami is thriving. Again, CO2 is not the enemy — never has been, never will be.

  4. Richard L. says:

    I read your excellent column in the HuffPo on a link from Hot Air. I didn’t know any Obama voters had that much common sense 😉

    Thumbs up on levelling that much truth to the Kool-Aid drinkers. I’m sure you’re amused by the Comments.

    I’ll be signing up for your email alerts. I’m always up for the thoughts from a mind that actually reasons.


  5. Wednesday on the Web (http://www.pvbr.com} would like your permission to reprint your fine Huffington Post piece about Gore apology as this week’s Cover Story due online Tuesday night. Full credit will be given to you and will be linked to your excellent Web site.
    Phil Brennan, Editor and Publisher

  6. Dan Summers says:

    I think you might find this website interesting:


    The author (who happens to be my father) is an energy expect that was sacked from his old gig at The Oil Drum for being a skeptic about man-made alterations in climate. I think you and he would have a lot to discuss.

  7. Duane K Wolcott says:

    “Major solar minima (and maxima, such as the one during the second half of the 20th century) have also been shown to correlate with significant volcanic eruptions. These are likely the result of solar magnetic flux affecting geomagnetic flux, which affects the distribution of magma in Earth’s molten iron core and under its thin mantle. So, let us say, just for the sake of argument, that such an eruption takes place over the course of the next two decades. Like all major eruptions, this one will have a temporary cooling effect on global temperatures, perhaps a large one.”

    Mr. Ambler. You make the above comment more-or-less “off the cuff”. Could you please steer me to any other references on the subject. I came up with the identical notion some years back, but have never been able to find it discussed in any depth anywhere.

    Since the the earth is moving within the sun’s magnetic field, then, by basic physics, there MUST be electric currents generated, but I have been able to find zero info on it. I’m a chemist, and not a geophysicist, so it’s WAY outside my core area of expertise, but I am VERY interested in it. It has always been my contention that, the magnetic field of the sun having doubled, that there MUST be energy flows as a result of that coupling to the earth.

    • Harold Ambler says:

      It is within the realm of possibility that the Chinese earthquake of 2008 was a “symptom” of the solar minimum that we are currently experiencing. I do not presume to know so. Neither would I be comfortable being told that it cannot be so. There were reports of unusual aurora in that part of China just prior to the tragedy.

      I have not completed my research into the subject.

  8. Mark G. says:


    When I heard this, I assumed it was a rumor started by skeptics trying to make Gore look bad. It wasn’t until I viewed the video with my own eyes that I realized what Gore had done. Gore has started a five year credibility countdown timer ticking and it’s up to all of us to make sure that he is held accountable and proven to be a fraud when his dire prediction aimed at drumming up support doesn’t come close to coming true.

    The mainstream media isn’t going to let this video see the light of day because they, unlike Al, understand the precarious position in which he has placed himself.

    It is therefore up to us to spread the word about Big Al’s prediction. He must be exposed for the fear mongering opportunist that he has become.

    To view the video, please visit the following site and click on the picture of Big Al holding up five fingers.


    While visiting this site, you might want to watch a preview of the film “Not Evil, Just wrong” which is linked to from the home page or watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle” which is found in the video section. Happy Viewing!!!

  9. Kurmudge says:

    You should post an interview with Philip Stott, who seems to parallel you in many ways, except that he is a biogography professor, who states that the first cave man to light a fire started affecting climate- so what?


  10. Greytdog Δ says:

    Cliimate ‘change’ is cyclical. Okay. Got that. (please bear in mind that I do not have an advanced degree of anything, I am not climatologist, I am simply a person who works in a menial and reads a lot) But are you saying that human activity – i.e. industrialization and modernization, have no affect on the climate? Do you think that the coal slug lehar that hit Tennessee will have any lasting affect on the environment and atmosphere (From the amount of heavy metal in the land as well as the gases release during the lehar?) Or should we just look at that particular coal lehar as being similar to a volcanic lehar and not worry?

    • Harold Ambler says:

      Like you, from the sound of it, I hope that we develop clean energy as rapidly, and intelligently, as possible.

  11. Greytdog Δ says:

    Well I do hope that we can develop energy as rapidly and as intelligently as possible. But if human activity does not impact the environment (and I admit that’s the message I understood from the “climate change” message), then what is the need for clean or green or whatever you want to call it, energy resources? Since climate change is cyclical, why not just “ride out” this particular cycle until we wound round again to a clearer atmosphere and such? In other words, since climate change is cyclical, there is no need for, and therefore, no incentive for, so-called clean energy resources. Or am I missing something?

  12. KK says:

    I am a scientist who teaches geological engineering/geology at a university. I agree with your contention that the climate is a very complex system. Please research the climate and atmospheric gases during the Early Triassic after the greatest mass extinction event in Earth’s history. This is possibly what we are facing – far greater change than anything man has faced in his short history on this Earth. Compared to changes in the past, we have had a fairly stable climate since Man decended from the trees to walk upright. The small swings in climate we have experienced had a great effect on humans and other life on Earth but they were small when compared to Earth’s earlier history.

    • Harold Ambler says:

      Have you studied solar cycles? Have you read Svensmark’s “The Chilling Stars”? The Sun and galactic cosmic rays, which are also modulated by the passage of our solar system through arms of the Milky Way, and up and down across the plane of the galaxy, are both climate drivers that have been shown to have significant impacts on life on Earth. So far, in the geologic record, there is no instance of CO2 precipitating global warming. So far, CO2 has always followed temperature in its fluctuations.

  13. Mark says:

    It doesn’t seem like anyone is saying that human activity does not impact the environment. The discussion involves the climate. I don’t believe there is a need for clean fuels if clean is defined by how much CO2 is put out. If we are talking about actual pollutants instead of a natural gas needed for life on the planet, then maybe more people would support almost bankrupting the country or the entire world for that matter by crippling entire economies under the guise of healing the planet that we are supposedly destroying. I believe humans are responsible for around 6% of the CO2 in the atmosphere and the rest is from natural causes.

  14. Greytdog Δ says:

    So I guess the question that keeps rattling around in my feeble brain – and trust me, at my age, feeble is a polite adjective – environment has no impact then on climate?

  15. John Coleman says:

    Hello Harold,

    I just found your site following a link for your Al Gore post on Huffington which I went to on a link for Marc Marano.

    You da man. Love your material. I buy your logic. Dig your style.


    I hope I will meet you at the Global Warming cancelled conference in New York in March.


  16. Eric Robbins says:

    I’d do this another way if I could find how to contact you. Could we correspond by e-mail about the availability of your book? Thanks!

  17. Mark says:

    Just watched your interview on Red Eye – Please keep up the truly scientific inquiry, it seems most others have just caved in to the political pressure. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong – one thing for sure they stopped debating.

Comments are closed.