I discovered the most informative time line regarding the history of tobacco litigation in this country. http://www.tobacco.org/resources/history/Tobacco_History20-2.html

In 1951 studies began to come to the fore demonstrating that smoking may be hazardous to your health. After a couple years following  publication of these epiphanies, the tobacco companies got together and attempted to stem the tide, so to speak. 

 

·  53-12-15: BUSINESS: Tobacco Execs Plan Counterattack on Smoking Studies. Plaza Hotel, New York City: Tobacco executives meet to find a way to deal with recent scientific data pointing to the health hazards of cigarettes. Participants included John Hill of Hill & Knowlton, his key aides, and the following tobacco company presidents: Paul D. Hahn (ATC), O. Parker McComas (PM), Joseph F. Cullman (B&H), J. Whitney Peterson, U.S. Tobacco Co. Here's the text of BACKGROUND MATERIAL ON THE CIGARETTE INDUSTRY CLIENT, the H&K memo covering the meeting, and here's the document in .pdf format, Minnesota Trial Exhibit 18905

·  1953-12-28: BUSINESS: Hill meets again with tobacco execs to report on his initial study of the smoking and health problem. 

At the time this was all taking place 3-5 % of humanity smoked. Tobacco was king again with increasing tobacco use the rule of the day. An awful lot of money was involved.

We, that is most of today's senior citizens, recall physicians appearing on our black & whites declared their favorite brand of smokes to millions of viewers.

In the 1950's, a series of cases came down that appeared to solve big tobacco's problem. Decisions were based upon a number of factors but in my mind there was one serious bar that made it difficult for a plaintiff who was harmed by tobacco use to succeed against big tobacco. This defense was based upon an old tenet in the law called contributory negligence. In those days, if the victim was deemed to be even ten percent responsible for his own injuries, he was SOL.

Just to give you an idea how bad this contributory negligence rule was, insurance companies would spend millions in trial just to get a jury to find that the victim in a car accident caused by a drunk was in the least bit negligent prior to the collision. Comparative negligence replaced this old defense over time.

Thirty years or so later, attorneys began bringing cases against the tobacco companies and hired experts to testify as to the many perils of smoking cigarettes. Tobacco companies hired their own experts. After all, the capitalists had a lot of money to spend and there never, ever is a problem finding some expert to buttress your position on some issue. No matter how ridiculous that position might seem to the consensus of experts in the field.

I came across on site where even in this day and age, you can hire your own expert for tobacco litigation. http://www.intota.com/expert-consultant.asp?bioID=777460&perID=727023

 

Expert is board certified in Toxicology by the American Board of Toxicology, the Academy of Toxicological Sciences and is a recognized expert in toxicology in France and the European Community. He is also certified in regulatory affairs and sits on Editorial Boards of major Toxicology publications and has over one hundred peer reviewed publications. He has a Masters of Science from Northeastern University and a PhD from Rutgers University. His expertise includes over 40 years of experience as a research chemist and/or a consulting toxicologist for numerous prestigious institutions and laboratories in the nation. http://www.intota.com/expert-consultant.asp?bioID=777460&perID=727023

 

There are hundreds of experts to choose from. And I do not wish to just pick one expert for ridicule, but you will notice this one does not care which side you are on. He will testify for either side. Neat huh?

Well global warming has its own host of experts. And take one company like Exxon; it mean money would be no object. And there is really a market out there. You know what I mean?

 One of my favorite hypocrites of all time, Senator Inhofe, loves to pontificate about the myth of global warming. When nothing is happening on the Senate Floor (and these lapses in the normal Senate agenda are becoming more and more rare with the Dems in control) CSPAN will show this ratfuck preaching over and over again about the perils of liberal thinking. He is such a picture of courtesy:

 INHOFE TELLS BOXER TO GET OVER IT:

 Sen. James Inhofe has won the battle against global warming -- or so he thinks.

"I proudly declare 2009 as the 'Year of the Skeptic,' the year in which scientists who question the so-called global warming consensus are being heard,'' the Oklahoma Republican said in a long speech Tuesday during a Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works meeting.

"Until this year, any scientist, reporter or politician who dared raise even the slightest suspicion about the science behind global warming was dismissed and repeatedly mocked.'' "Today, I have been vindicated," he said.

The reason for Inhofe's glee? Not any scientific shift, merely the news that a binding international agreement on climate change will likely be put off until 2010. President Obama has been hobbled by Congress in his attempts to lead the way for the global pact. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/20/inhofe-to-boxer-we-won-yo_n_365465.html

Where do Imhofe and his minions and constituents get their fuel? Why from experts.

Andrew C. Revkin at the NYT reported a lapse in expert management by polluters last week:

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change

The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments -- in some cases derisive -- about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.

In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical "trick" in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as "idiots."

The cache of e-mail messages also includes references to journalists, including this reporter, and queries from journalists related to articles they were reporting.

Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach. They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&hp

Now if a poor 20 year old girl rents out her body from time to time to help support her drug habit or even her children or even to beat the high cost of tuition, she is labeled a whore. Surely we can come up with a better term to label experts who sell their honor and their souls for Exxon monies.

This gets trickier, the selling of souls in this day and age. I mean a doctor who took money from Lucky Strike could not be prosecuted for appearing on TV and reading from a script.  It was not like they were under oath or signing formal papers directed to governmental officials.

But what if studies are prepared and sent to governmental agencies? What happens if the expert appears in court or a congressional hearing and a few emails appear that might indicate larceny in the heart of the witness?

I found this fun article that at least touches on the issue of the infallibility of experts:

Study after study shows that juries put a great deal of faith in the testimony of expert witnesses. A good expert witness can often swing a verdict one way or another.  But what happens when the expert lies?  What happens when the expert thinks his job is to support the case theory espoused by the side that employs him, regardless of the results of the tests conducted?

Fred Zain was a West Virginia State Police forensics expert who testified in hundreds of criminal cases.  He presented himself well.  He appeared to know his subject so well that judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys didn't question the laboratory results Zain said he obtained.  Juries believed him.  They convicted the defendants when Zain testified that his laboratory conjuring showed they were guilty, even when other evidence conflicted with his testimony, and especially when no other incriminating evidence existed.  Fred Zain became something of a forensics "star," sought after by prosecutors who wanted to win convictions in difficult cases.  His stature in West Virginia led to a better job offer, chief of physical evidence for the medical examiner in Bexar County, Texas, and he did for Texas what he had done for West Virginia.  He lied.

From all appearances, Fred Zain didn't set out to repeatedly, almost routinely, commit perjury, and thereby send innocent people to prison for crimes they didn't commit.  In his own defense, Zain has pointed to inadequate facilities, conflicting duties and an overwhelming caseload.  All those factors were present.  What Zain doesn't mention is the fact that he was never qualified to be doing forensic lab work in the first place.  His college transcripts reveal that Zain was a mediocre scholar who had failed organic chemistry.  Apparently no one reviewed Zain's transcripts before putting him on the job, or before qualifying him as an expert witness.  No one looked at his transcripts until the house of cards he had built came tumbling down.

Fred Zain is the victim of his own success.  Over the years, Zain rose to the position of Chief of Serology at the West Virginia Department of Public Safety (crime laboratory).  What he couldn't establish in the laboratory was arrived at through a unique form of logic called "backwards reasoning."  If the defendant is guilty, it is likely that ... is the predicate for such reasoning.  It presumes the defendant's guilt, and bases its findings on that presumption. But when you add to that presumptive base inadequate facilities, conflicting duties, an overwhelming caseload, and put them in the hands of an unqualified "expert," you have the prescription for disaster. 

The disaster came in the form of Glen Woodall, convicted in 1987 of multiple felonies, including two counts of sexual assault, and sentenced to a prison term of 203 to 335 years.  At Woodall's trial, Zain testified that, based upon his scientific analysis of semen recovered from the victims, "[t]he assailant's blood types ... were identical to Mr. Woodall's."  Woodall's conviction was affirmed on appeal, but DNA testing done in a subsequent habeas corpus proceeding established that Woodall could not have been the perpetrator.  His conviction was overturned in 1992 and Woodall was freed.  Woodall sued the State of West Virginia for false imprisonment, and received $1 million in settlement.  This ultimately led to an extraordinary investigation of the entire body of Zain's work ordered by the West Virginia Supreme Court.  The report concluded that the actual guilt of 134 people was substantively in doubt because the convictions were based on inculpatory reports and/or testimony by Zain.  Nine men have been freed because the remaining evidence offered against them was insufficient for conviction ~ the expert testimony of Fred Zain alone had put them in prison. [Click HERE to read the investigative report and its recommendations.]  http://truthinjustice.org/expertslie.htm

Sometimes truth wins out, even in the case of experts. Really, when you get down to it, Yoo and Bybee are being attacked for lying in their 'expert' testimony. This is really a tough nut to crack.

Folks, money will always win out. In the end, I mean. Not much we can do about it except to pass around the hat and make sure that the side of truth, justice and the American Way have war chests to purchase their own experts.

In the meantime, smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbKQklwNScA