lol. You forgot to include some Washington Examiner links too.


Ain’t that the truth.

The Scientific American did an excellent rebuttal of the former DOE guy. For whatever reason, they see "theoretical physicist" and they see "expert in everything."

https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/statu...203387523?s=19

Oil price picking up steam

from today's headlines.............


(Bloomberg) -- Outgoing Stanford University President Marc Tessier-Lavigne retracted two papers from the journal Science Thursday, just as the former high-flying neuroscientist steps down from his post after questions arose about his earlier research.

The flawed brain studies were published in February and March of 2001, when Tessier-Lavigne was a rising star at the University of California, San Francisco. They’ve been cited hundreds of times by other scientists since then, a sign of acceptance as important scholarship. They’re among five he pledged to retract or correct when an investigation initiated by the university’s board released its findings in July.

Spurred by a series of articles in the Stanford Daily student newspaper, the board scrutinized a wide swath of research that Tessier-Lavigne oversaw, including one study published when he was a top research executive at Genentech Inc., just before the biotech was fully purchased by Roche Holding AG in 2009. While the review found evidence of “manipulation of research data” by other authors in some of the studies reviewed, there was no evidence he had falsified results.

In brief retraction notices for the two Science papers, Tessier-Lavigne said that in 2015 he proposed corrections to each that weren’t published “because of an error on the part of the journal.” However, after the review found evidence of manipulated data, he decided to retract them, the notices said."

Maybe this, ^^^^^^^ and Fauci living in a theoretical utopian glass bubble leads people to at least question the accepted experts opinions?

So because an individual scientist manipulated data and it was discovered during the peer review process after which it was retracted, all other scientists are also frauds...

Yes, Leads me to wonder....

With spot at $85/barrel and 42 gallons per barrel....that means that unrefined crude is $ 2.02/gallon. Right now the gas price is $3.17/gallon at my local gas station. So, somebody has to purchase crude, ship it to a refinery, process it, ship it/distribute it to outlets and after federal, state and local taxes and ALL the overhead(truckers, insurance, salaries, taxes, infrastructure involved in trans/dist) combined with ancillary markups and profit margins added all along the supply chain. I see a very small profit margin that can only work in a business model that deals in HUGE volume. In essence...highly leveraged to potential disruptions. .. I can see why nobody wants to build a new refinery.

It's NOT GREED as was alluded to.... it's more like self preservation.

That's my real world synopsis as opposed to some pie in the sky "Everything should be free" unobtainable utopia. JMO/YMMV

Of course they're not.

But scientists tend to be very good at a specific niche, but if you get outside of that area they tend to have pretty strong opinions without much depth to back it up, some kind of an emotional thing (insecurity?).

I've got several Phd's in my family (all STEM) , they are all very practical and have worked in the private sector, and most served in the military including a paratrooper in 'Nam. They all agree that scientists in general should inform well-grounded decision makers (elected officials, military leaders, business execs, etc) but often don't do very well if they're the ones driving the ship or calling the shots.

They will also tell you that academia in general is culturally off on an excursion in LaLa Land right now.

Think Einstein, not Rasputin, if you know the history.

Oh please. No one said that. So stop with that blatant logical fallacy. This example was out there for over 20 years before being retracted… 20 years of being quoted and cited. That’s not a small thing.

Look, skeptics aren’t saying “all other scientists are a fraud”, they are saying maybe there is a whole lot of group think going on, and there is more to understand. Maybe it is human-influenced (to some degree), but maybe there is also a natural variation going on. In the meantime, let’s move toward renewables, sure. But let’s also not tank our economy at the alter of righteousness in the process. Maybe a balanced approach is appropriate.

There actually are frauds out there, though. East Anglia “ClimateGate” ring a bell?

I think you missed the point and also embellished what I said.

Firstly, while it was retracted, it was in publication for over 20 years and was cited by numerous scientists as unimpeachable. Perpetuated bad data tends to spread like a pyramid scheme and accepted as gospel.

I never said all other scientists are frauds. I simply tried to show why having a least some reluctance in believing everything the "experts" say (because experts aren't always experts) without taking in the big picture can be just as bad. Fauci is the perfect example. His science on COVID was a pretty big fail(not because some of what he wrote was unimpeachable) but much of what he postulated turned out to be wrong . But more damage was done because he failed to look at the big picture which different political tribes parsed to push their narrative.


This was all attempting to answer a post effectively saying...."Stupid pilots......think they know more than the "experts"....just shut up and color". I'm sorry if you don't like my opinion.

edit...I see fangs and rickair beat me to it... I t y p e r e aaa ly sl ow l y

Who is saying "everything should be free"?

And you are really stuck on greed being a bad thing.

Yep, oil companies are barely staying alive: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/...evels-in-2022/