Robert Howarth speaker at an anti-fracking rally, comes out with a paper against fracking

If you want to see the manufacturing of liberal activism science in the making, look no further. The NY Times is trumpeting a study that they hope will kill production of the US’ most abundant resource, natural gas.

The findings, which will be published this week, are certain to stir debate. For much of the last decade, the natural gas industry has carefully cultivated a green reputation, often with the help of environmental groups that embrace the resource as a clean-burning “bridge fuel” to a renewable energy future. The industry argues that it has vastly reduced the amount of fugitive methane with new technologies and upgraded pipe fittings and other equipment.

Put Pundit Press, quoting the first law of liberal thermodynamics, points out that there are so many problems with the study, it’s hard to really take it seriously:

• The Methane made me do it: The Studies conclusions rely almost entirely on the application of a Global Warming Potential (GWP) that is almost 45% higher for natural gas than the one cited by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007
• Faulty data leads to faulty analysis and even the study's authors admit their data is "lousy"
• Lost and Unaccounted for Gas (LUG) relies on non peer reviewed Texas trade magazine that is no longer in circulation
• The author's estimates on pipeline leakage relies on data and assumptions that are completely irrelevant to the Marcellus shale

The Hill has an expert that also points to the same inconsistencies.

But why just focus on the absurdity of the research. If you really want an idea of Dr. Robert Howarth’s beliefs, here he is speaking in the middle at an anti-fracking rally, wearing a pin.

Could you imagine what the media would do if a climate skeptic scientist were wearing a BP pin?


  1. Modus operandi is pretty clear. Attack whatever energy source is popular and widely used and promote some alternate unused or uneconomic source. Then when energy usages changes, attack the new sources in favor of some other uneconomic source. In the end, environmentalists are just against energy per se. I.e. against human comfort.

  2. Thanks for the link, much more here


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.