Iris on science · June 17th

The Trump administration has abandoned its effort to halt wind energy projects across the United States and dropped its challenge to the court ruling that tossed President Donald Trump’s order freezing federal permitting and leasing for wind projects.

Today’s high will sit in the low‑70s, around 73‑78°F, but expect a quick swing of rain and thunderstorms this afternoon. The storms will move from the northwest toward the southeast between about 11 a.m. and 5 p.m., then lift northward. As the warm front pushes through, dew points will climb into the 70‑75°F range, keeping the air humid and the cloud bases low.

Later in the evening, a band of super‑cell storms will track east‑southeast, likely arriving between 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. The environment looks primed for strong wind gusts (some over 75 mph), hail up to an inch or two, and a small chance of a tornado or two—perhaps one or two EF‑3/EF‑4‑type events near the deeper low pressure in the northern counties. Rainfall totals should be about 0.8‑1.5 inches, with a few spots a bit higher.

Tomorrow looks warmer, with highs climbing to the mid‑70s‑low‑80s. Expect a brief lull of sunshine after the storms, then a return of strong southerly winds and high humidity. The overall picture is a fairly active pattern, so keep an eye on any updates if you’re heading out later today.

Extreme‑event attribution is built on peer‑reviewed studies that compare observed weather with thousands of climate‑model simulations, letting us estimate how much climate change nudged a storm’s intensity. Those methods have shown, for example, that climate change added roughly a quarter to the rainfall that flooded Houston during Harvey.

What the article highlights isn’t new science—it’s a coordinated push from fossil‑fuel interests to sow doubt about that work. It points to internal emails from a government climate panel, echoing the classic tobacco‑industry playbook of “manufacturing uncertainty” to protect profit.

Scientists involved in attribution are now facing harassment and accusations of bias, even though the review process for these reports is rigorous and multi‑layered.

The takeaway is simple: the controversy is being driven more by a strategic campaign than by genuine scientific disagreement, so we should keep the focus on the solid evidence rather than the manufactured doubt.

I have had a little theory bubbling away in the back of my mind for a while now. Truth be told, it is not a unique theory at all; many seem to have arrived at it independently. You see, a lot of people have been paying attention to the deranged actions of Big Tech CEOs, major business leaders, high-level investors and AI labs and asking, “Are these guys suffering from AI psychosis?” Because, when you stop to think about it for a second, that theory would explain so much of this bubble’s insanity and the factors propping it up. In fact, there are even people within this bubble starting to claim that their peers are being driven by AI-derived delusions. So, do we have a case of mass AI psychosis? Let’s start with what AI psychosis actually is. It is a new term, so its definition is still a little loose, but Healthline defines it as “a term used to describe psychosis-like mental changes that can happen after heavy use of AI tools, such as chatbots”. More recent studies have sought to determine what actually causes this psychosis. One such study found that the extreme level of sycophancy in AI chatbots can cause spiralling delusions if used heavily, as it erodes users’ sense of reality and isolates them from real, grounding human connections, eventually culminating in AI psychosis. Other studies have backed this theory, finding that AI’s sociopathic behaviour is responsible for creating delusional thinking in its users. Let’s not kid ourselves. This isn’t a new problem, particularly in the world of business. Since their inception, the yes-man problem has plagued corporations. People in positions of power, from CEOs to middle managers, tend to surround themselves with people who agree with them, rather than those who hold them to account or engage in critical thinking. This is because it validates them not just on a personal level but also for others who rely on them. This can be harmless, as long as the systems of accountability and critical thinking remain intact. But as soon as these leaders abandon the uncomfortable truth or undermine accountability and replace it with sycophantic flattery, a death spiral starts. It creates an “organisational blindness” as leaders lose touch with reality and the systems designed to keep them under control are cast aside. Their decisions become increasingly erratic, delusional and self-serving until eventually they are either forcibly kicked out or the organisation crumbles around them. This yes-man problem is so damaging and so notorious that avoiding it has been an integral part of business management for decades. But it’s fair to say that in our modern world, we have forgotten those lessons. For a whole host of reasons, from rampant union busting, wage theft, undermining workers’ rights, and overvaluing C-suite executives to extortionate executive pay, the power and decision-making dynamics in modern corporations have become increasingly authoritarian and stratified. In other words, what little upward feedback, decision-making or accountability there once was has been drastically reduced to functionally zero. Corporate control, particularly in tech companies, venture capital firms, and rapidly growing startups, is now concentrated at the tippy top with no accountability systems in place. This is a perfect environment for the yes-man problem to rear its ugly head, given that becoming a sycophantic yes-man is one of the only ways to climb that corporate ladder. But it is also an environment that leaves these decision-makers highly vulnerable to AI psychosis.

This week’s Frankly is another in my recurring series “Uncomfortable Questions for Unsettled Times,” in which I pose questions about our shared future. Today, I use headlines regarding a potential ceasefire deal between the U.S. and Iran to confront a subject that has re-entered public discourse with a quiet but startling force: nuclear warfare. Through a wide-boundary lens, I outline how the renewed discussion of nuclear force raises questions that extend far beyond the current conflict, including important (and uncomfortable) questions about nuclear proliferation, human psychology, and the erosion of long-standing taboos. I consider the possibility that many of today’s geopolitical tensions are symptoms of deeper shifts underway in the global balance of power, and ask what happens when societies begin revisiting assumptions that once seemed settled. While renewed public discussion around nuclear weapons provides the immediate context, this episode is ultimately less about any single weapon or conflict, and more about the forces shaping human decision-making during periods of uncertainty and transition. Why do societies tend to realize the importance of a norm only when it is being broken? Are today’s conflicts fundamentally about ideology and security, or are they about power, resources, and influence in a changing world? And what happens when established assumptions about global leadership, cooperation, and stability are put to the test? Want to dive deeper into the concepts covered in this episode? Follow along with the Show Notes & Links to Learn More, which you can find at the bottom of the page for every episode of The Great Simplification, or you can download them here. In the latest episode, I was joined by Michael Every, Global Strategist at Rabobank, for an unflinching analysis of the Hormuz crisis and the fundamental principles pointing toward the Strait’s closure for several more months. Michael walked through multiple scenarios – a TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out), NATO military action, Chinese intervention behind the scenes – and explained why none of them offer an easy exit. The conversation expanded to explore what this crisis means for the future of global energy trade, the emergence of rival production blocs, the collapse of demand-side macroeconomics, and the surprising potential for a more equitable world to emerge from the chaos. The Great Simplification podcast is produced by The Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future (ISEOF), a 501(c)(3) organization. We want to keep all content completely free to view globally and without ads. If you’d like to support ISEOF and its content via a tax-deductible donation, please use the link below.

Last week, we looked at a new study of the origin of complex cells, one that showed that our ancestors' genomes were pieced together from bits and pieces of multiple species. It put a spotlight on a phenomenon called horizontal gene transfer, in which a gene from one species is incorporated into the genome of a distantly related species.

So researchers have been trying to figure out how dads can pass on certain traits to their kids beyond just their DNA. They've been looking at something called epigenetic inheritance, which is like a set of instructions that can be passed on from parent to child. A recent study found that this process might not be related to the energy-producing parts of the sperm cells, or to the environment the sperm are in when they're leaving the testes.

This study suggests that the testes themselves might be where these epigenetic changes are happening, and it's not just about the sperm picking up signals as they're moving through the epididymis, which is like a tube that the sperm travel through after they leave the testes. The researchers are trying to understand how this process works, and what it means for how traits are passed down from dads to their kids.

The study is a step towards understanding how environmental factors might affect the traits that dads pass on, but it's still early days and more research is needed to fully understand what's going on. The researchers are looking at the small RNA molecules in sperm, which can carry information from the dad to the developing embryo. They're trying to tease out how these molecules are affected by the dad's environment and how that might impact the kid's development.

It's a complex process, and the researchers are just starting to scratch the surface of how it all works. But it's an interesting area of study, and it could have implications for our understanding of how dads contribute to their kids' health and development. The study is based on some careful experiments, but it's just one piece of the puzzle, and we'll need to see more research to really understand what's going on.

A new lab study shows that fibrils of α‑synuclein, the protein that clumps together in Parkinson’s, can trigger mitochondria to pinch off tiny vesicles. The researchers used cultured neurons and added purified α‑syn fibrils, then tracked mitochondrial membranes with live‑cell imaging. Within minutes they saw an increase in mitochondrial‑derived vesicles (MDVs), which are normally a quality‑control response.

The MDVs carried damaged proteins away from the organelle, but the study found that the vesicles also contained the added α‑syn fibrils, suggesting the protein hijacks this cleanup pathway. When the team blocked the budding process, the neurons accumulated more aggregated α‑syn and showed higher stress markers.

These findings are limited to cell‑culture models, so we can’t yet say they happen in people. Still, the work adds a concrete mechanistic link between α‑syn aggregation and mitochondrial stress, and it points to MDV formation as a potential early step in the disease cascade.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 123, Issue 24, June 2026. In Italy, evergreen holm oaks (Quercus ilex) and deciduous sessile oaks (Quercus petraea) experienced a synchronized establishment pulse starting at the beginning of 1400s CE, consistent with a release from anthropogenic pressure following demographic ...

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 123, Issue 24, June 2026. Dietary guidelines form the foundation of federal food policy, informing programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), government food procurement, school meals, and military and hospital food services.