The anti-fracking movement’s favorite “expert”, Dr. Tony Ingraffea, just got served a piece of humble pie – and a major reality check – courtesy of U.S. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson.
For background, Judge Carlson oversaw an infamous 2016 court proceeding where a jury awarded plaintiffs from Dimock, Pa., $4.2 million for nuisance claims related to alleged water contamination from drilling. But last week, Carlson threw out the judgement and ordered a retrial, thanks in large part to Dr. Ingraffea’s junk science. Ingraffea was called in as an “expert” to help the plaintiffs’ case, but the judge ruled his testimony had the opposite effect. According to Carlson, “the weakness in his [Ingraffea’s] testimony contributes substantially to the Court’s finding that a new trial is necessary because the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence that was presented.”
That’s because, by Ingraffea’s own admission, he had “no direct proof” for any of his theories, leaving his opinions on the matter to be nothing more than speculation. But what do you expect from a fractivist who admits to injecting “advocacy-laced words in phrases” into his so-called scientific research?
Another day, another phony anti-fracking claim debunked.