Environmentalist Stick-Up

This is one of the most incredible things I have seen in a while.  I will describe the video, but it is only a bit over a minute long and you should definitely watch it.

The clip below is an outtake from the environmentalist movie "Crude", which purported to document the environmentalist's case against Chevron in Ecuador.  Apparently, between takes of earnest and un-selfinterested environmentalists saving the world from greedy corporations, these self-same environmentalists discussed lying about the science and duping the courts in order to score a big payday for themselves.

The video is doubly interesting because, as Anthony Watts explains, the woman in the video taking money to make up untrue findings was recently confirmed to the NAS, where there is a good bet that we will see her as the source for "evidence" that fracking is contaminating groundwater.  These three folks are all the subject of a civil suit from Chevron but all three should be subject to criminal charges for fraud and conspiracy.


  1. TJIC:

    Utterly unreal.

    I've been arguing against the more conspiracy minded folks on "my side", saying that there's bad science, yes, but it's likely done in good faith.



    It really is as bad as the most lunatic fringe rightist says: the leftists are unabashedly lying and making up stuff to push their agenda.

  2. LoneSnark:

    And at the same time eating a great meal!

  3. Mesa Econoguy:

    Yep, lawsuit time.

    RICO, fraud & conspiracy, whatever. Time to teach these shit-for-brains that you don’t get to just make crap up and have it stand in the public sphere, especially where private interests are harmed/extorted.

    Ignorant asshole doesn’t even know what a gradient is called.

  4. Craig:

    I'd seen this clip today, but could not figure out where the video came from. I'd thought it was undercover though the video quality didn't support my theory. Your explanation makes it even more brazen.

  5. Mark:

    It is all about the underlying economics for the Leftist. "Enviromentalism" and "Global Warming" are just excuses to push their agenda, which is to control other people's lives and limit their well being. THey view themselves as an elite, view other successful people with disdain bred of jealousy, and want everyone to be dependent upon their "good will".

    Right wingers are not jealous of the wealth of the Koch Brothers, Bill Gates, or George Soros. We recognize their success, hard work, and even luck. Even inherited wealth was earned by hard work and ingenuity, even rich people should have the natural right to pass their wealth to their children.

    We live in a world of plenty, but surrounded by vain and jealous people.

  6. Another Ian:

    This sort of fits here

    "How to tell if you lean to the 'left' or if you are a Conservative?

    13 December 2011 , 11:34 PM by Stephen Austin

    If ever you wondered what side of the political fence you sit on, this is a simple test. (According to a listener Ken)

    If a Conservative voter doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.

    If a left wing voter doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

    If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.

    If a left wing voter is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned.

    If a Conservative voter is gay, he quietly leads his life.

    If a left wing voter is gay, he demands legislated respect.

    If a Conservative voter doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.

    If a left wing voter doesn't like a talk show host, he demands that those they don't like be banned.

    If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.

    If a left wing non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced ... unless its and exotic religion of course.

    So how did you fare? Where do you sit on the ideological spectrum?"



  7. Stan/Tx:


    The correct term is “fracturing” not “fracking”. Fracking is a made up word created by the environmental community and journalist that are not familiar with the correct term or process. It allows them to steer Internet searches away from the energy industry sites that contain truthful information.

    The Pavillion draft report makes the completely unsubstantiated conclusion that fracturing is connected to ground water contamination.


    The EPA cherry picked a known shallow gas are to conduct is study.
    The monitoring wells were contaminated by the mud and chemicals used in the drilling process.
    The monitoring wells were 3 to 5 times as deep as normal ground water wells and the sampling process was designed to induce gas migration from the surrounding area.
    Data from surface pit monitoring wells was used in the report. The surface pits are a known historic problem, they are being remediated by the oil company and they have nothing to do with fracturing.
    An honest study would show that by drilling and depleting these shallow gas zones in the Pavillion area, the oil industry is reducing ground water contamination due to natural migration of gas in the formation.

  8. caseyboy:

    These environment wacko's appear to be in the "lets ride the public dole as long as we can" group. They tend to fall into one of two camps. The lets feed at the public chuck wagon or lets fix the planet by getting rid of those pesky humans starting with the deniers.

  9. MJ:

    "Smoke and mirrors and bullshit." I couldn't have said it better myself.

  10. Fred from Canuckistan:

    Going to NAS?

    Should be jail . . . for a long, long time

  11. colson:

    "The EPA cherry picked..." Like we haven't seen that before:


  12. Panzersage:

    You guys just don't understand. It's for a good cause so it doesn't matter what is true and what is not. These people are just trying to save the environment. Who cares that they are using junk science, committing numerous crimes, and stealing money. Won't somebody please think of the children that won't actually be affected.

    The nice thing is that this can be used to set back the green movement a fair bit in their job destruction attempts.

  13. Patrick Moffitt:

    I had a colleague tell me a few years ago that we had passed the point in the environmental field- that if we tried to tell someone what was really going -no-one could believe you. (Not would but could -an important distinction)

    Can show you evidence of much worse- but as one activist professor told me-it doesn't matter - no-one will print it- no-one will publish it- and even if they did -no-one will understand it or believe it.

    It is this confidence of impunity that leads to what is seen in this video.

  14. Mark2:

    Seems like the video has been taken down. Didn't get to see it :-(

  15. John:

    Hope it's OK to link to this from my blog. I consider this a very important story. I have seen stories like this before but this one is blatant.
    I can't wait to see the inevitable counter that "it's taken out of context...".

    And Stan's comment is icing on the cake.

  16. David Zetland:

    Sorry, but you folks are viewing this video from a particular bias. These guys are not talking about money for themselves, but money from a lawsuit, which may go to many people (some will go to them). They are just trying to do WHAT ACADEMICS ALWAYS DO, which is to argue what should be happening when NOBODY has any evidence. They are not talking about falsifying reports. You all need to put your guns away and sit down to think things through.