Here's an interview he did on the Kunstlercast: http://kunstlercast.com/shows/kunstlercast-192-arthur-e-berm...
Your argument would be stronger if it were framed as an actual argument backed by evidence instead of in the form "well mr. So-and-so is an expert and he says..."
But one is really abouve all: natural gas is a fossil fuel and burning of fossil fuels leads to climate change. The costly investment on this harmful energy source is much more needed in renewables.
Unfortunately climate change science has been distorted in the media.
We are going to burn something. Better it be natural gas than oil or coal.
I guess at some point in the future we'll have lots of nuclear power and won't need to burn anything, but right now we do.
Natural gas is the cleanest energy source we have, in some ways even cleaner than nuclear.
And natural gas is also better for human health and overall environmental quality since the emissions are almost pure CO2 and H2O without a risk of acid rain, particulates, or radioactive fly ash. Being able to make such huge environmental gains in the short-term at very minimal economic cost is as much of a no brainer as these things get.
Many studies have been done on fracking, and there is every indication that with sound regulation and proper practices it is a perfectly safe technique for extracting natural gas. More so, using natural gas for energy instead of oil or especially coal is an enormous carbon emissions win. Far greater than any hybrid or even all electric vehicle technology can achieve. To write it off as an evil because you heard some anecdotal evidence somewhere just proves you don't take the fundamental problems of energy production and the environment seriously.