A commentary on “The greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas in shale formations” by R.W. Howarth, R. Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea

@JennyYeremiy @ABDanielleSmith @howarth_cornell Howarth's research practices were shown to be faulty by his colleagues at Cornell: https://t.co/HCp7Nw5tlg https://t.co/NQxCR4dTdp https://t.co/GqWuuShdZf

@JohnVaillant @Dave_Eby @GeorgeHeyman @JonathanWNV Here are some reviews of his previous research on the topic: https://t.co/HCp7Nw5tlg https://t.co/29p5oT0VHr

@giantcheetoAB @maxfawcett Here are some reviews of his previous research on the topic: https://t.co/HCp7Nw5tlg https://t.co/29p5oT0VHr https://t.co/huSSp2exof

Nice try but that report has been proven fake! Next

@MartinBrampton @nellslad @JafSupO @BrknMan @Tark4Real @mike_maric @JLopean @MikeWel61647760 @weberj502 @Sasha67Oz @GreyTash @Royalacresrod @johnson_wrjohn1 @IngersolRobert @Tom575935021 @CCross1776 @markp1950 @Shadowzerg @KeillerDon @johnstretch @cjtjgeol

@howarth_cornell For what its worth, there are plenty of other papers find similar results to mine, including: Schwietzke et al 2014: https://t.co/vAtWfSefjD Cathles et al 2012: https://t.co/NwCMcOtNR1 Farquharson et al 2016: https://t.co/A1NrFjvDps

@danmiller999 @howarth_cornell A reminder, that paper was so bad that Howarth’s colleagues at Cornell published a scathing rebuttal of the paper (https://t.co/2i4bt0AdiB) then they wrote a follow-up (https://t.co/IzNeYahgps) When your own colleagues are w

@IanKing @KenCaldeira @DrChrisClack Authors of one of my favorite natural gas papers....the ones that his colleagues at his own university felt a need to rebut...for those of you unfamiliar with academia, when people from your own university author the reb

@Mike_from_PA Response by Cornell geology professors to Ingraffea's 2011 paper: https://t.co/EDUQcdC9yC

@nervoussardines @Noahpinion @NobodysLion Not an expert in the field, but in my experience, it's usually better when the assumptions used in a model don't violate physics. ("This is incompatible with the physics of shale gas production...") https://t.co/8p

@CCPA_BC @MarcLeeCCPA The underlying science behind this article is faulty. It depends on a previous CCPA report that relies on the the Howarth paper that was subsequently shown to be in error https://t.co/2i4bt0ROHb It is simply a case of basing an entir

From a fellow Cornell scientist: @kali0x2a @crisortunity https://t.co/ehsOtnaoLM

@shalegasexpert I like "A commentary on 'The greenhouse-gas footprint of natural #gas in #shale formations'…" though: http://t.co/xVWEi5tmFX

.@flux55 @Eric_Doherty @RisingTide604 except student "scientists" are basing their presentation on debunked "science" http://t.co/v3NgY8eCgA

.@flux55 @Eric_Doherty @RisingTide604 except student "scientists" are basing their presentation on debunked "science" http://t.co/v3NgY8eCgA

.@CanadaBFF @Eric_Doherty appropriate 'scientists' in quotation mark as they cannot even keep up with the literature http://t.co/v3NgY8eCgA

More on shale gas vs coal - http://t.co/GpqHKZHRCw @SiphoMcD

@JamiaStarheart @uamuzik @ClimateDesk Putin wants us2stop drillin2 BTW this leak hysteria soundly debunked by Cornell http://t.co/Qx19RaOqvg

RT @Profiainstewart: Shale gas GHG footprint is half to a third of that of coal. http://t.co/rCHtrLjR

Shale gas GHG footprint is half to a third of that of coal. http://t.co/WfgS1P88

@Protohedgehog @PlanktonMath back and forth then happened http://t.co/XyMPvqxD http://t.co/SsZ23gFU

@_Joep Tenés la fuente? Porque desde Cornell dicen lo contrario http://t.co/hMqUqrGa Como se explicaría entonces la reduccion de emisiones?

Paper by Cathles said Howarth initial study "seriously flawed,' overstated gas greenhouse impacts http://t.co/JsEjNFNt

"the GHG impact of natural gas = coal @ high methane leakage rate of 7.9%" http://t.co/45GZZpwQ frac gas < GHGs, nat gas in power generation

Cornell Uni report debunked by Cornell Uni report. 1st report "seriously flawed." Gas advantages "not in dispute." http://t.co/hVmBY1n9 #CSG

RT @naturalgaslaw: Is shale gas still cleaner than coal? http://t.co/CJNhIw1B #natgas #fracking #energy

Is shale gas still cleaner than coal? http://t.co/CJNhIw1B #natgas #fracking #energy

RT @carbonmeme: A commentary on “The greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas in shale formations” http://t.co/QyRMncPW

A commentary on “The greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas in shale formations” http://t.co/QyRMncPW

RT @eidmarcellus: RT @JohnHQuigley: Cornell peers demolish Howarth study of GHG footprint of natural gas: http://t.co/yonGvRhW

MT @Revkin 2nd peer-reviewed Cornell study rebuts Howarth conclusion that GHG impact of fracked #natgas worse than coal http://t.co/WkM9plKh

RT @JohnHQuigley: Cornell peers demolish Howarth study of GHG footprint of natural gas: http://t.co/yonGvRhW

RT @JohnHQuigley: Cornell peers demolish Howarth study of GHG footprint of natural gas: http://t.co/Rx9fVQOL

Cornell peers demolish Howarth study of GHG footprint of natural gas: http://t.co/rdKt3fxg

MT @DanWhitten Cornell Colleagues: Howarth's assumptions "inappropriate & data ... doesn't support their conclusions." http://t.co/JtB1T0SZ

Commentary on Howarth's Climatic Change Letters - http://t.co/BBBtTubs #shale #whatarethefacts

MT @DanWhitten: Cornell: Howarth's assumptions "inappropriate and their data do not support their conclusions." http://t.co/ams4Zb8K #natgas

Cornell Colleagues: Howarth's assumptions "inappropriate and their data ... do not support their conclusions." http://t.co/rWO8CAaO #natgas

RT @Revkin: New peer-reviewed Cornell study rebuts Howarth conclusion-greenhouse impact of fracked gas worse than coal. http://t.co/Ya6FKAxl

RT @Revkin New peer-reviewed Cornell study rebuts conclusion that greenhouse impact of fracked gas worse than coal. http://t.co/O7UPDXpy

The greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas http://t.co/nlMk7iJn #technology

RT @Revkin: New peer-reviewed Cornell study rebuts Howarth finding that GHG impact of fracked gas worse than coal. http://t.co/DN1bGZRU

RT @Revkin: peer-reviewed Cornell study rebuts Howarth that greenhouse impact of fracked gas worse than coal. http://t.co/njMP6GmT

Surprised they didn't add "no duh" to the abstract: http://t.co/R5i75rn7

RT @ghoberg: re BC LNG MT @Revkin: New peer-reviewed study rebuts concl that GHG impact of fracked gas worse than coal. http://t.co/v042LaRG

RT @Revkin: New peer-reviewed Cornell study rebuts conclusion that greenhouse impact of fracked gas worse than coal. http://t.co/v3yeP27z

re BC LNG MT @Revkin: New peer-reviewed study rebuts concl that GHG impact of fracked gas worse than coal. http://t.co/v042LaRG

New peer-reviewed Cornell study says shale gas GHG footprint half to 1/3 of coal: http://t.co/JQfZmboW h/t @revkin #fracking

New peer-reviewed Cornell study rebuts Howarth conclusion that greenhouse impact of fracked gas worse than coal. http://t.co/NiM6YWkr