Watch the video below, it is quite something. Amazing that they were stupid enough to tape themselves saying this much less turn it into a documentary!
UPDATE: The legal pleading has been added, link below, quite a read.
————-
Excerpt From Wizbang: Environmental Scientist Caught Agreeing To Ignore Her Own Data, Make Up New Claims
Dr. Ann Maest is a managing scientist at Straus Consulting, and she’s the go to expert on all things groundwater. In the press release announcing her reappointment to the National Academy of Sciences, they mention that she is focused on the environmental effects of mining and petroleum extraction and production, and, more recently, on the effects of climate change on water quality.
Maest is in high demand as an expert for those looking to stop oil and mineral exploration. She’s also heavily used by the federal government, even though after new details about her past work are coming to light as a result of a lawsuit. From The New York Times:
An environmental consulting firm named as a defendant in a racketeering suit filed by Chevron Corp. over a landmark pollution lawsuit in Ecuador is continuing to work on another blockbuster case: the Deepwater Horizon oil spill investigation.
Boulder, Colo.-based Stratus Consulting, a long-term contractor with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other federal agencies, is gathering and analyzing data concerning the Gulf of Mexico spill.
Chevron is suing those behind the Ecuadorian case including: the lead attorney Steven Donziger; Stratus Consulting; and Maest. As part of their lawsuit, Chevron obtained through discovery, outtakes from a documentary called “Crude” that show Donziger and Maest colluding ignore their own findings and make up some new unsubstantiated claims. Watch this:
from the YouTube description:
The following is an outtake from Joe Berlinger’s movie Crude. At the March 4, 2007, lunch meeting between plaintiffs’ lead U.S. lawyer Steven Donziger and plaintiffs’ U.S. consultants Charles Champ, Ann Maest and Richard Kamp, they reveal the truth about plaintiffs’ lack of evidence and their intent to manipulate the Ecuadorian court. Maest tells Donziger that they need evidence of groundwater contamination, because plaintiffs did not submit any. Maest admits that, “Right now all the reports are saying it’s just at the pits and the stations, and nothing has spread anywhere at all.” Donziger responds, “Hold on a second, you know, this is Ecuador. … You can say whatever you want, and at the end of the day, there’s a thousand people around the courthouse. You’re going to get what you want. Sorry, but it’s true.” Donziger continues, “Because at the end of the day, this is all for the court just a bunch of smoke and mirrors and bulls**t. It really is. We have enough, to get money, to win.” View more outtakes at YouTube.com/TexacoEcuador. For more information about the Ecuador lawsuit, visit Chevron.com/Ecuador
Read the whole thing at Wizbang: Environmental Scientist Caught Agreeing To Ignore Her Own Data, Make Up New Claims
Here’s the legal pleading, quite a read h/t to Steve
http://www.chevron.com/documents/pdf/ecuador/StampedComplaint.pdf
I’ve worked with lawyers on intellectual property disputes. While I had them laughing, with the ‘mute’ button in on, while the other party stews in some unwelcome information, I’ve never seen anything like this sort of unethical and possibly illegal.
Cementafriend; I doubt that the US DOJ would do anything to help Chevron.
“Not quite as bad as using cherry-picking 1998 as the starting point for global temperature graph or comparison”
Probably depends in what you are trying to show. 1998 is valid for North America because that is when temperatures started a fairly linear decline. 2004 is better if you are talking global because that is when the overall downtrend started, when the trend in sea level rise flattened (sea levels in most of 2011 were below the 2004 peak) and when ocean heat content began to level out. I use 1975-2004 as the late 20th century warming period and 1911-1942 as the early 20th century warming period. The trends are very close in both periods. Close enough that statistically speaking they are nearly identical. Global temperature trends since 2004 in all data sets are in decline. But statistically speaking, there’s been no global warming since 1998 globally in land surface measurements. That wa really the last year of the late 20th century warming.
[SNIP: Not really appropriate, don’t you think? -REP]
Racketeering, the art of the shake down.
Launch a series of automatic legal challenges when a company wishes to set up a factory/oil extraction/coal mine etc by making up supposed environmental threats. It has become a giant industry since the tactic became the favoured vehicle of big eco, its a real rent payer for them. Its so easy to do and to get away with, the burden of proof lays with the company that their activities will not cause changes to the environment.
Usually the Mark(company) will pay up out of court to avoid delays, and this is where big eco gets paid again and again. Like street con artists they can expect a payout once every three or four shake downs. What really changed the playing field and tipped the odds in the favour of big eco was the adoption of tough environmental laws in the USA and this was no accident. How many industries have fled the USA? How many jobs have disappeared?
For every company/corporation that paid into the big eco racket you can estimate that three pulled out and took jobs with them, took wealth overseas. Over the decades as the Sierra clubsters got rich and powerful they were instrumental in destroying millions of industrial jobs, perhaps they thought it was a small price to pay in order to enrich themselves or maybe the prize of destroying the great Satan was just too tempting. At the end of the day when its all about money and power and a small group of people who found a way to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
@Kevin O’Neill
re: “making stuff up”
as I understand it their ‘science’ showed only contamination right at the site (“under the pits” as they said) and NOT 300 yards away…. so whether they call it a “theory” or whatever, to assert anything other than what the actual data shows is indeed “making stuff up”
The issue was whether Chevron/Texaco was responsible for any contamination outside of the actual site. If there was not actual contamination beyond the site (which would justify only cleanup at the site), then seeking billions of dollars in “damages” under some bogus “theory” is indeed making it up.
@Cassandra King
Yes, although in this case the ‘shakedown’ was over issues from decades ago, before Chevron even owned the subsidiary in question. As I understand it there had been a complete legal settlement in the late 70s, before Chevron had any involvement at all. Then, with the prospect of “deep pockets” and the corrupt Ecuadoran “justice system” plus rabid activist groups of idiots, this shakedown was about getting vast penalties/damages for vast (unsupported) claims about contamination in the past.
As the scumbag lawyer says in one of the vids, when you can get 1,000 angry ppl outside a courthouse you can get what you want in Ecuador, facts and science be damned.
I well recall voicing the opinion in a well-researched paper more than a decade ago that information about pollution levels in London was being misrepresented and exaggerated by green activists. That published opinion in the newspapers elicited threats of personal violence and death. Green “Believers”, although many at heart are well-meaning, are not necessarily nice people and are certainly rarely tolerant and open to debate.
When I first saw the “hockey stick” I was convinced that there was a real problem that should be addressed. I began some exploration starting with the Professor David MacKay’s book Sustainable energy without the hot air. The professor is now well embroiled in the the alarmist camp being the scientific advisor to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change. Sadly he seems to have been forced to forget his stance of using as he says “numbers not adjectives”, because he previously debunked all the common assertions about the efficacy of renewable energy. Although he believes that CO2 is contributing significantly to “Global Warming / Climate Change”, he had at long last produced a great deal of quantified common sense on the subject of the efficacy of renewable energy.
This lead me on to a wider exploration of the question of Man-made Climate Change / Anthropogenic Global Warming / Catastrophic Climate Change, etc.
As my exploration has progressed my views have become increasingly sceptical about the promotion of probably dubious science, the evasion of proper “scientific methods” and the political agendas that have invested so much into confirming the assertion. So, from being a credulous Believer I have become a Sceptic and thus a “Denier”.
I would like to think that this is a common path for anyone who really thinks a bit about what has going on around the in relation to “Climate Catastrophe’.
A clear example of the way these people think.
“The end justifies the means”.
Ultimately character counts.
Q. What is a good term for a scientist, who really isn’t a scientist, as they rely on other than empirical evidence, when making or proving a theory. For that matter, any scientific case that relies on conjecture (models)?
A. A “Hanson”.
I am a scientist who regularly give expert testimony on environmental matters in my chosen are of expertise. I cannot believe what I have just seen. When I am badgered by an attorney to push a given line that fits with the attorney’s view, I usually tell them to take a hike. My testimony is mine, and if they dont like it then they would be better advised to find someone else who can tell it like they want it. Astounding stuff, and make me both ashamed of the science profession and very much more sceptical of others who give testimony than I used to be. Bloody disgraceful
Having watched the applicable chunks of video and read most of Chevron’s complaint…if even 10% of what’s in there is true there should be a number of former lawyers and former scientists pounding the pavement.
The scary part, of course, is that if it weren’t for the video these sleazeballs might actually have pulled something off.
I’ve attended two of Chevron’s recent shareholder meetings. I blogged about the 2011 meeting on Ricochet under “Gramps” but a Ricochet server seems to be down so I can’t retrieve it. I met the Atossa Soltani mentioned in Chevron’s complaint. She was organizing the group of “shareholders” asking hostile questions of the CEO. I wish Chevron luck in their lawsuit. This bunch deserves a good thrashing.
Do we have an extradition treaty with Ecuador? Are their jails up to Guantanamo standards?
dp says:
December 13, 2011 at 9:28 pm
[SNIP: Not really appropriate, don’t you think? -REP]
Well, yes, it was. It was a real world way to make the point that egregious choices have egregious outcomes. Real life has an ugly side that even the high bred need to be aware of.
I don’t blame you for cutting it, of course, but can’t think of a nicer way to make the point, unfortunately. It is what it is.
Wow.
Without this video these conspirators would have been claiming that this lawsuit was the Big Oil Conspiracy persecuting them because they were battling AGW, or something.
Vile. In a civilised world, where litigation was based on evidence, this coming out would make the name of Maest 100% untouchable for the foreseeable future. In the world we actually inhabit, unfortunately, it’s most likely she will remain not only “a managing scientist at Straus Consulting”, but also “the go to expert on all things groundwater”. Maybe, if we’re very lucky, we’ll see an “investigation” in which she is “completely exonerated” – seems to be the usual way of dealing with these trifling embarrassments (© UEA et al).
GroundWaterGate
A couple of quotes from the British TV series Yes Minister sum up the situation very aptly:
“No one really understands the true nature of fawning servility until he sees an academic who has glimpsed the prospect of money or personal publicity.”
“The surprising things about academics is not that they have their price, but how low that price is.”
“We have enough, to get money, to win.”
That’s quite the quotable quote. Sadly sums up too much of the eco-crisis industry.
I am amused that the defendants felt such hubris that they allowed themselves to be candid in front of cameras. This speaks to bad judgement and a disconnect from reality, ethics, and law, that is truly jaw dropping. When this kind of money is at stake, you don’t do candids EVEN IF YOU ARE PURE AS DRIVEN.
You keep your mouth shut.
Environmental terrorism?
We have the same in the UK. The elite with elite lawyers, manipulate government policy to get rich. This is why the UK Law Society lost its power of self-discipline [planning corruption, people trafficking by corrupt solicitors] and a NewsCorp employee did the PR for CRU when it was being whitewashed in the Oxburgh enquiry.
Don’t want all that investment in falsifying data to get carbon trading in place to fall by the wayside, do we!
What has happened in the US is that the scientists have in effect gobn freelance and were dumb enough and arrogant enough to video themselves doing it.
No crooked lawyer would do that, surely, but maybe they thought themselves immune? CP, Fabian, Marxist,? The wax on the wings has melted.
It’s habituation. Jane Goodall used it to show the amazing behavior of primates.
Ha! I found her (GIYF) explaining what she did:
http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp-central-habituation
I’m thinking that the unreleased FOIA leaked e-mails contain such incriminating evidence. We may never get to read them. GK