• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Activist Researcher Back With Debunked Claims On Oil, Methane Emissions

by NICOLE JACOBS
August 16, 2019, 9:47 AM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 4 mins read
A A
3
Share on FacebookShare on XwitterShare on Linkedin

fracking oil gasA new Park Foundation-funded methane study is generating lots of anti-fracking headlines, despite its conclusions being at odds with the bulk of the scientific community.

Cornell University professor and Food and Water Watch board member, Bob Howarth, is back and this time he claims that oil and natural gas emissions are the primary cause of recent global methane spikes – a theory that many climate and atmospheric scientists have rejected.

Howarth’s conclusions were called “far-reaching” and “premature” by one of the anonymous experts tasked by Biogeosciences to review the research prior to publication, who explained:

“The advice to move as quickly as possible away from natural gas based on this study does not appear sufficiently conclusive…”

The research, which Howarth stressed multiple times during the journal’s review process is “in the ‘Ideas & Perspectives’ category and is not a traditional research paper,” also met a healthy dose of skepticism from the scientific community. As Newsweek reports:

“Quentin Fisher, professor of petroleum geoengineering at the U.K.’s University of Leeds, said he was ‘deeply skeptical’ about the study. ’The results are extremely sensitive to highly questionable assumptions regarding the isotopic composition of methane found in shale. The arguments made by previous studies that increase in methane in the atmosphere is from biogenic sources, such as release from wetlands and agriculture or burning of biomass, seem far more convincing.’” (emphasis added)

Fisher’s criticism is likely the first of many if Howarth’s previous research track record of rejections is any indicator. Here are four key facts to keep in mind when reading the study’s media coverage.

Fact #1: Howarth’s research is a prime example of the “Keep It In the Ground” echo chamber.

This research was funded, written and peer-reviewed by people and organizations openly affiliated with the KIITG movement.

Given this, it’s unsurprising that Howarth’s solution to his perceived problem is to “move as quickly as possible away from natural gas,” according to Newsweek, despite acknowledging in the study that there are “large opportunities for reducing emissions” in the oil and natural gas sector.

Funding

The Park Foundation’s president Adelaide Park – a family heir – has said:

“In our work to oppose fracking, the Park Foundation has simply helped to fuel an armyof courageous individuals and NGOs.” (emphasis added)

A 2018 Northeastern University study found the Park Foundation to be one of the largest funders of anti-fracking research and activism:

“To support efforts to ban/restrict fracking, Schmidt ($3.3 million), Hewlett ($1.5 million), Park ($1.1 million), and Heinz ($1 million) were the leading funders. Park gave primarily to groups working in New York state. Relative to protecting drinking water supplies, major funders included Heinz ($1 million) for efforts in Pennsylvania; and Park ($760,000) for work in North Carolina and New York. Major funders of research on fracking’s health and environmental impacts included Heinz ($2.7 million), Park ($780,000), and Schmidt ($390,000). These funds were given to a mix of universities and environmental groups.” (emphasis added)

Conflict of Interest

Despite declaring “no conflict of interest” in the study, Howarth clearly has conflicts, most notably that he sits on Food and Water Watch’s board of directors.

F&WW explains that its board consists of “leaders in activism” and prides itself on being “the first U.S. national organization to call for a ban on fracking.”

Peer-reviewers

At least one of the study’s peer-reviewers has clear conflicts of interest that are also not disclosed in the study. Fellow Cornell professor and activist Tony Ingraffea sits on Earthwork’s board of directors – a group that vehemently opposes fracking and stood by its organizer, Sharon Wilson (also thanked in the study), when she equated it with “rape”.

He is also the founder of Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy, an organization that has released several health studies that blame fracking for a multitude of ailments, but offer no actual proof as to how they reached such a conclusion, including at least one that Ingraffea had a hand in drafting.

Notably, these studies have been heavily criticized by other environmental groups for not taking real measurements.

The group also released a 2012 media strategy memo that urged environmentalists to make connections between health problems and fracking even when no evidence to support the linkages exist.

Further, Ingraffea has called himself “a self-admitted advocate” against fracking on multiple occasions.

Fact #2: Howarth’s previous oil and natural gas emissions research was thoroughly debunked by the scientific community.

In 2011, Howarth teamed up with Ingraffea on a study that alleged methane leaks from oil and natural gas systems to be around 7 to 8 percent – for context, most studies estimate leakage rates to be between 1.1 and 1.7 percent.

Even the Environmental Defense Fund’s estimate of a 2.3 percent rate, which is roughly 60 percent higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s estimates, is far below Howarth’s 2011 estimate or his new study’s estimate of 3.5 percent leakage.

Read rest at EID Climate

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Skype
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky

Join our list

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously

Related Posts

Energy

Trump DOE Kills $3B Biden-Era Green Loan To Embattled Solar Firm

May 29, 2025
Money & Finance

10,000 Elites Jet To French Riviera For Latest UN ‘Climate Emergency’ Summit

May 29, 2025
Extreme Weather

Grok Breaks Ranks, Presents More Balanced View On Climate Change Than Other AIs

May 29, 2025

Comments 3

  1. David Lewis says:
    6 years ago

    The use of phony methane emissions to oppose fracking is the way the entire climate change movement works. First, start with a political objective. Then get people to use sloppy science or no science to come to conclusion to support the political objective. There are many examples of this including the UN climate models. In the case of methane emissions, there is a double error. Not only has the amount of methane being released by grossly exaggerated, but there is also no need to limit these emissions because we are not on the path to harmful climate change.

  2. Spurwing Plover says:
    6 years ago

    I am sure this scam man will get plenty of support by the Climate con artists and the usial idiots from the various Eco-Freaks this Junk Science is what DDT was banned the KEEP IT IN THE GROUND nit-wits need a lesson in truth not Junk Science

  3. Randy Verret says:
    6 years ago

    It’ll be interesting if this article appears ANYWHERE except this website and Energy in Depth. The good folks over at Eco Watch (already) are “touting” this study as proof of oil & gas industry methane misdeeds. I have to admit. With the way the deck is “stacked” in the mainstream media these days with constant energy & environmental misinformation, it is little wonder we have little thoughtful debate about energy imperatives & rational environmental protection…

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • solar panel installationTrump DOE Kills $3B Biden-Era Green Loan To Embattled Solar Firm
    May 29, 2025
    Trump DOE cancels $3B Biden-era loan to solar firm accused of exploiting elderly, raising new questions about green energy funding oversight. […]
  • nice france beach10,000 Elites Jet To French Riviera For Latest UN ‘Climate Emergency’ Summit
    May 29, 2025
    Over 10,000 climate delegates jet to the French Riviera as UN organizers seek $100B in pledges at the third Ocean Conference to fight planetary doom. […]
  • Grok smartphoneGrok Breaks Ranks, Presents More Balanced View On Climate Change Than Other AIs
    May 29, 2025
    Elon Musk’s Grok challenges climate orthodoxy, highlighting skeptical views, failed predictions, and real data from NASA and NOAA. […]
  • bike lane traffic BostonWar On Cars Revs Up As Activists Target Driving In The Name Of Climate
    May 29, 2025
    Lawmakers push mileage limits, EV mandates, and anti-car policies in a growing war on driving disguised as climate action. […]
  • Biden signs executive orderReport: Biden Likely Unaware Of Harmful Climate Policies His Admin Churned Out
    May 28, 2025
    Who’s really behind Biden’s energy agenda? Major executive orders reshaping U.S. policy were never publicly addressed by the president himself. […]
  • Biden visits GM EV plantGM Dumps EV Plan, Pours $888M Into V8 Engines After Biden Mandates Scrapped
    May 28, 2025
    GM pivots NY plant from EV parts to V8 engines as GOP, Trump EPA dismantle Biden’s electric vehicle push and California’s EV mandate. […]
  • earth sunrisePredictive? Study Finds IPCC Climate Models Overstate Warming Up To 4.5°F
    May 28, 2025
    New study finds IPCC climate models overstate warming nearly 4.5°F, with benchmark models proving far more accurate in long-term forecasts. […]
  • Government Accountability OfficeSenate GOP Accuses Govt Watchdog Of Trying To Save California EPA Waiver
    May 28, 2025
    Republicans are criticizing the GAO for showing bias and overstepping its bounds in trying to stop Congress from repealing California’s EPA waiver. […]
  • NYC traffic congestionFederal Judge Blocks Trump’s Bid To Kill NYC Congestion Toll
    May 28, 2025
    A federal judge blocked Trump’s bid to kill NYC’s congestion toll, preserving New York’s climate law and traffic-cutting program—for now. […]
  • Gavin Newsom PresserGavin Newsom Is Seething After Congress Repealed California’s Gas Car Ban
    May 27, 2025
    Gov. Newsom is steamed after Congress repealed a Biden EPA waiver letting California ban gas-powered cars and said he'll fight back. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email either instantly or daily. Check your Junk folder for any verification emails upon subscribing.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books We Like

very convenient warming

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch