Will it be a gentle hurricane season? Well, I obviously hope so. We’re almost a month into it, with just two minor storms, and it does look like things are going to stay calm for another month. But the peak of the season is still a couple months off, so I don’t think it’s safe to draw any conclusions yet.

Of course, I fearlessly predict that regardless of how many hurricanes there are–more, fewer, or the normal amount–some will attribute it to SUVs, and claim that it’s evidence for climate change.

Here’s a very interesting article that says that RNA is much more important than we used to think, with profound implications for medicine, biotech and even evolutionary theory.

Eight inches of snow in the Bighorn Mountains. In June.

Must be global warming.

…from Freeman Dyson.

…on climate change? Apparently not.

…for pandemics.

I decided to pull this up into a separate post, because I think it illustrates exactly the problem that Frank Tipler was identifying. Two comments:

“I’ll add that General Relativity is sort of a “dead end” in physics in the sense that practically nothing depends on it. You can’t really use it for anything.

and

Rand, I think you just cited the exception that proves the rule when you referenced GPS. Where else do you use general relativity on a regular basis? It’s an interesting topic, but doesn’t seem to be core to a physics degree.

Well, I provided at least one more example–tracking NEOs that might hit us in the next few decades.

But the point is that if you don’t understand general relativity, you won’t even know whether or not you need to consider it. I’m simply staggered by the notion that it’s an esoteric field that has no use.

Any time you do an orbital calculation, you have to know whether or not you can get by with Newton, or whether or not you need to incorporate Einstein. It may be that in many cases you don’t need to, but to not even consider it would be professional malpractice, just as someone doing a suborbital rocket would need to decide whether a flat-earth (i.e, Galileo) model was good enough, or if they had to do it Newtonian, and consider the differences in the model. And how could you possibly make such an assessment if you don’t understand General Relativity?

To me, this simply reinforces Tipler’s point.

Literally, in this case, given the name of the high priest.

I wish I’d thought of this:

I keep reading about how hybrid cars and compact fluorescent lightbulbs can reduce the production of greenhouse gases, but I have yet to see an article about the savings that could be achieved if we were to stop delivery of newspapers and magazines and do all of our news reading on line.

Hey, I think it could rival toilet paper usage reduction as a solution to the problem. Maybe even beat it.

Hey, now I’m thinking dual-use here. I’m a genius (no need for applause in comments, but you know you want to…). It’s not just for training puppies and parakeets any more!

…not a denier. That’s my position on AGW, as it is on other religions. Thomas James explains why with a tale of science as it should be taught.

Andrew Ferguson has a report on the debate that I asked about last week, that (sort of) answers my question. And I see that Derbyshire had the same question:

Darwinism, viewed one way, can easily be considered morally disastrous. But, responded pro-Darwin Derbyshire, Is it true? “The truth value of Darwinism is essential,” he said. “The truth value always comes first.” If Darwinism is true–and its undeniable success in explaining the world suggests that it is–and if Darwinism undermines conservatism, as West had claimed, “then so much the worse for conservatism.”

I’d like to think that he was influenced by the email I sent him with a link to my post before the debate, but I suspect that he was already loaded for that particular bear. And I agree with Gilder, despite his disbelief:

“Darwinism may be true,” he said, “but it’s ultimately trivial.” It is not a “fundamental explanation for creation or the universe.” Evolution and natural selection may explain why organic life presents to us its marvelous exfoliation. Yet Darwinism leaves untouched the crucial mysteries–who we are, why we are here, how we are to behave toward one another, and how we should fix the alternative minimum tax. And these are questions, except the last one, that lie beyond the expertise of any panel at any think tank, even AEI.

It is possible to try to build an ethical system out of evolutionary theory, I suppose, but it’s certainly not necessary, and not necessarily desirable.

[Afternoon update]

Derbyshire cites my previous post, and has further thoughts.