The first link is rather dated.

[url]http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-02-23/angry-about-high-gas-prices-blame-shuttered-oil-refineries[/url]

This one is older still.

[url]http://www.factcheck.org/2008/05/us-oil-refining-capability/[/url]

From this year:

[url]http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/10/news/economy/refineries-gas-prices/index.htm[/url]

[url]http://www.hpj.com/archives/2012/mar12/mar12/0306AgvisorsMRsr.cfm[/url]

Thanks.

[QUOTE=kladner;310911]The first link is rather dated.

[URL]http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-02-23/angry-about-high-gas-prices-blame-shuttered-oil-refineries[/URL]
[/QUOTE]But it does explain the sweet-crude/sour-crude factor.

[quote]
This one is older still.

[URL]http://www.factcheck.org/2008/05/us-oil-refining-capability/[/URL]
[/quote]Mentions difficulties of getting permits for new refineries. Mentions the conspiracy theory ([FONT=Arial]these closings were calculated choices intended to increase oil company profits[/FONT]) set forth by yet another U.S. senator in the vein started by Sen. Henry "Scoop" "obscene profits" Jackson during the 1970s oil crunch. Points out that economics alone explains the situation without needing any conspiracy.

[quote]
From this year:

[URL]http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/10/news/economy/refineries-gas-prices/index.htm[/URL]
[/quote]Mentions the sweet/sour and transportation problems.

[quote]
[URL]http://www.hpj.com/archives/2012/mar12/mar12/0306AgvisorsMRsr.cfm[/URL][/quote]Gives much more detail about the transportation problem, particularly the effect of the Jones Act.

Here's an article about a current Republican counterpart to Democratic Sen. "Scoop" Jackson's four-decades-ago biased rhetoric:

"GOP Attacks Obama With Gas Price Cudgel, While Media Ignores Refinery Closures"
[URL]http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=7231:gop-attacks-obama-with-gas-price-cudgel-while-media-ignores-refinery-closures[/URL]

(note: this was written in March 2012)
[quote]As the stock market and overall economy slowly improve, the GOP [URL="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/views/os-ed-dana-milbank-030812-20120308,0,5804933.column"]continues to blame[/URL] President Obama for rising gas prices as November's election approaches. A barrel of oil is now selling for $106, reflected in $3.77 average gallon prices at the pump. The drumbeat of the GOP message is constant: The Obama administration is at fault for limiting oil companies' access to potential domestic sources in environmentally-fragile locations.

This narrative has dominated media coverage, as Jocelyn Fong insightfully [URL="http://mediamatters.org/blog/201202230006"]dissects[/URL] on [I]Media Matters[/I]. Yet almost totally absent from the news has been how oil companies are pinching off the supply of gasoline by shutting down refineries. Strangely, this is occurring at a time of plentiful domestic oil supplies; the United States now exports more oil than it imports.

But NPR recently broke the mold of poor mainstream coverage—much of which blames rising prices on increasing tension between Iran, Israel and the United States—by broadcasting [URL="http://www.npr.org/2012/02/22/147261788/whats-behind-the-recent-hike-in-gas-prices"]a story[/URL] about the curious chain of refinery shutdowns on the East Coast. The United Steelworkers union (USW), which represents many oil refinery workers, has also been calling attention to three shutdowns in the [URL="http://www.usw.org/media_center/releases_advisories?id=0507"]Philadelphia area[/URL]; two other refinery have closed on the East Coast during the last two years.
[/quote]Looking for more about refinery shutdowns, I searched on "refinery closure shutdown close" and found this about a Caribbean refinery closure:

"UPDATE 3-Valero's Aruba closure deepens Atlantic refinery woes"
[URL]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/19/valero-aruba-idUSL1E8EJ22420120319[/URL]

and these three about refinery closures in Australia:

"Caltex faces $680m bill with refinery shutdown"
[URL]http://www.smh.com.au/business/caltex-faces-680m-bill-with-refinery-shutdown-20120726-22vat.html[/URL]

"Oil-slick politics: Canberra slippery on refinery shutdowns"
[URL]http://theconversation.edu.au/oil-slick-politics-canberra-slippery-on-refinery-shutdowns-8529[/URL]

"Security in doubt as Australia’s aging oil refineries shut down"
[URL]http://theconversation.edu.au/security-in-doubt-as-australias-aging-oil-refineries-shut-down-5553[/URL]

I amended my search to "Europe refinery closure shutdown -US" and found:

"Background Information on UK downstream oil industry"
[URL]https://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/meeting-energy-demand/oil-gas/5748-background-information-on-uk-downstream-oil-indust.pdf[/URL]

and other articles on European shutdowns.

"Will Defecting from the GOP Help Ron Paul's Supporters Take It Over?"

[URL]http://www.dailypaul.com/253801/will-defecting-from-the-gop-help-ron-pauls-supporters-take-it-over[/URL]

[quote]Over the last year, many of Paul’s supporters have claimed that the GOP can’t win without them. That’s either a threat or a promise. As any parent knows, neither should be made emptily.

Following all of the shenanigans against them throughout the Primary season, and the RNC’s decision in Tampa to [URL="http://youtu.be/W_pgfWK3sxw"]alienate them completely[/URL], Paul’s supporters have been considering how to vote in November.

. . .

Therefore, I recently polled the 13,000-strong community of [URL="http://www.facebook.com/bluerepublican"]Blue Republicans[/URL], all Ron Paul supporters, to find out for whom they intended to vote for President.

An overwhelming 66% said they would be voting for [URL="http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/"]Gary Johnson[/URL] – the Libertarian candidate who shall be the only candidate other than Obama and Romney on the ballot in every state (absent yet more GOP mafia tactics). Sixteen (16) percent will be writing in Ron Paul, even though most don’t expect their vote to be counted, and Romney will attract the votes of a negligible 6%. (Margin of error +/-4%.)

These results may have serious implications for November’s election and signal the real possibly of an exciting shift in the trajectory of American politics.

. . .[/quote]An interesting possibility

Thanks for the additional links on the refining situation, Cheesehead, and the analysis.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;311078]"Will Defecting from the GOP Help Ron Paul's Supporters Take It Over?"

[URL]http://www.dailypaul.com/253801/will-defecting-from-the-gop-help-ron-pauls-supporters-take-it-over[/URL]

An interesting possibility[/QUOTE]

I will probably be voting for Johnson. I'd like my vote to count, which eliminates Paul. (I and my parents would have voted for Huntsman as well.)

PS: [url]http://www.scienceleftbehind.com/[/url]
[quote]To those who would claim that any one party deserves the mantle of being “pro-science,” Berezow and Campbell offer a bracing corrective.[/quote]
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g"]It sure as hell wasn't me[/URL] (might've been Cheese or Ernst though)

[QUOTE=Dubslow;311102]
PS: [URL]http://www.scienceleftbehind.com/[/URL]

[quote]To those who would claim that any one party deserves the mantle of being “pro-science,” Berezow and Campbell offer a bracing corrective.[/quote]
[/QUOTE]Note the difference between "leftists" and the Democratic party.

Does Berezow ever show where the Democratic party put anti-science positions in [i]its official party platform[/i] the way [i]Republicans[/i] have?

AFAIK the Democratic party platform hasn't included anti-vaccine statements or anything else as explicitly anti-science as that, whereas Republicans _have_ put planks in their official platform promoting the introduction of creationism into science classes and denying the scientific consensus on anthropological global warming.

The two parties are _not_ equal with regard to science.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;311147]AFAIK the Democratic party platform hasn't included anti-vaccine statements or anything else as explicitly anti-science as that, whereas Republicans _have_ put planks in their official platform promoting the introduction of creationism into science classes and denying the scientific consensus on anthropological global warming.[/QUOTE]

This is ranging a bit off-topic, but here in "enlightened" Dem-stronghold CA, there was an interesting stat on the news last night - bear in mind that many of the schools in question are in upscale portions of Silicon Valley, the ones where the early-IPOers and VCs live, with super-high educational standards and scientific literacy. Anyway, the stat was that parents who send their kids to pivate schools are opting out of vaccinations at an alarming rate, double that for public schools and in many cases approaching 100% opt-out (when the opposite, 90%+ opt-in is required for the vaccination program to be effective).

Here is the AP article the local-news piece was apparently drawn from -- apparently it's not just the Bay Area but is in fact a state-wide issue:

[url=www.bnd.com/2012/09/09/2316128/ap-exclusive-private-school-vaccine.html]AP Exclusive: Private school vaccine opt-outs rise[/url]: [i]SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Parents who send their children to private schools in California are much more likely to opt out of immunizations than their public school counterparts, an Associated Press analysis has found, and not even the recent re-emergence of whooping cough has halted the downward trajectory of vaccinations among these students.[/i]
[quote]The state surveys all schools with at least 10 kindergartners to determine how many have all the recommended immunizations. The AP analyzed that data and found the percentage of children in private schools who forego some or all vaccinations is more than two times greater than in public schools.

There were 110 private schools statewide where more than half the kindergartners skipped some or all of their shots, according to AP's analysis, with Highland Hall Waldorf School in Northridge - where 84 percent opted out - topping the list.

Parents cite a variety of reasons for not immunizing their children, among them: religious values, concerns the shots themselves could cause illness and a belief that allowing children to get sick helps them to build a stronger immune system. Likewise, there's no single explanation that accounts for why so many more parents who send their children to private schools apparently share a suspicion of immunizations.[/quote]
Check out the science-denying "reasons" in the last snip. I have some sympathy for the "allowing kids to get sick" for some routine childhood ailments known to be far worse in adulthood (although with an effective chicken pox vaccine now available, there is one less of those) and as regards avoiding antibacterial soaps which also kill the commensals, but for diseases like whooping cough the public-health professionals are absolutely correct. I would like to ask those parents, "If polio were still around, would you want your kid to build a strong immune system by catching that, too?" And given the mountains of data about vaccine risk vs disease risk, to cite "vaccine dangers" is innumerate in the extreme.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;311157]Check out the science-denying "reasons" in the last snip. I have some sympathy for the "allowing kids to get sick" for some routine childhood ailments known to be far worse in adulthood (although with an effective chicken pox vaccine now available, there is one less of those) and as regards avoiding antibacterial soaps which also kill the commensals, but for diseases like whooping cough the public-health professionals are absolutely correct. I would like to ask those parents, "If polio were still around, would you want your kid to build a strong immune system by catching that, too?" And given the mountains of data about vaccine risk vs disease risk, to cite "vaccine dangers" is innumerate in the extreme.[/QUOTE]

I find it disturbingly ironic, seeing as the whole point of a vaccination is to get the patient just a wee bit sick, so that the immune system is built up, which is exactly one reason cited for [i]not[/i] taking the vaccination.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;311102]
PS: [URL]http://www.scienceleftbehind.com/[/URL]

[quote]To those who would claim that any one party deserves the mantle of being “pro-science,” Berezow and Campbell offer a bracing corrective.[/quote][/QUOTE]Has anyone (Berezow, Campbell or anyone else) compiled (now, or in the past) a list of anti-science Democrats on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee that matches [URL="http://motherboard.vice.com/2012/8/21/congress-s-science-committee-doesn-t-get-science"]this list of anti-science Republicans[/URL] on that committee?

Is there, or has there ever been, any self-declared anti-vax Democrat on that committee, to match the self-declared evolution-denying or AGW-denying Republicans now on that committee?

The two parties are _not_ equal with regard to science.

You'll get no argument from me that the GOP is [url=http://www.artofteachingscience.org/2012/08/31/congress-silent-science-debates-high-stakes-questions/]ludicrously anti-science[/url], especially its tea party wing. My point was that whatever people profess publicly, they often do very differently in their own lives. The true test of whether someone believes in the scientific method is "practice what you preach." As I so often say, innumeracy kills.