Pragmatic politics focused on the public interest for those uncomfortable with America's two-party system and its way of doing politics. Considering the interface of politics with psychology, cognitive biology, social behavior, morality and history.
Etiquette
DP Etiquette
First rule: Don't be a jackass. Most people are good.
Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.
Comments by a retired woman are quoted in a NYT opinion (not paywalled). The retired woman says it all for millions of average Americans.
“I’m 65 years old. I’m legally blind. I’m on disability. I went to my doc, and I lost 28 pounds in the last year. I did not need to lose 28 pounds. I did not try to lose 28 pounds. I lost the 28 pounds because I cannot afford to eat anymore.”
She can afford no more than $65/month for food.
Millions of Americans her age and younger are facing the similar dismal retirements and retirement prospects. Too many younger people can afford to save much or anything for their retirement. Millions of retired people are in bad situations.
Elite MAGA's response: Get a job, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and stop whining.
Another MAGA policy goal is to offload risk onto individuals and let them sink or swim on their own. MAGA elites have no empathy. But they're in power and calling the shots. If they get their way, they will stay in power and keep calling the shots, whether its legal or lethal or not.
An interesting recent research paper (February 26, 2026), Carbon dioxide overload, detected in human blood, suggests a potentially toxic atmosphere within 50 years, documents the change in acidity (pH) of human blood from 1999 to 2020. That is not surprising in view of the increase in CO2 levels from ~380 ppm in 1999 to ~414 ppm in 2020.
The researchers found that average levels of serum bicarbonate, a chemical marker closely linked to carbon dioxide in the body, have risen by about 7% since 1999. Over the same period, average calcium and phosphorus levels in human blood has declined. There is a gradual shift in blood chemistry that mirrors the rise in atmospheric CO2.
The physicists at phys.org published a lay audience commentary on this paper, including some comments by the two authors. One commented that the data suggest to him that our our bodies are not adapting well and we may be close to limits that our blood chemistry can handle for CO2.
Currently, adverse health impacts are speculative and hard to quantify. This research adds to evidence of an emerging dimension of climate risk that extends beyond heat waves, extreme weather, sea-level rise, and crackpot climate science denial.
Context & commentary
Humans existed mostly in times when CO2 levels were mostly fairly close to about 300 ppm or less, so what we are now in is uncharted territory. Humans came on the scene about 150,000 years ago. Obviously, we have no choice but to inhale more CO2 as its level in air continues to rise. That is expected to increasingly affect blood bicarbonate, calcium and phosphorous levels. Under the current trend, the air we breathe will become increasingly powerful, eventually becoming toxic decades from now. We do not know what non-trivial effects, if any, on human health this altered state of blood chemistry is having right now. A lot more research needs to be done.
The researchers say that going forward, all the data now clearly indicates that biomarkers like blood bicarbonate levels in humans and other species need to be tracked along with traditional global warming indicators.
Q1: Which global warming threat do you feel is greatest, heat waves, extreme weather, sea-level rise, or crackpot climate science denial?
Q2: Are you unconcerned about this change in your own blood chemistry or in your family’s blood chemistry?
Q3: Is this research just more lies from allegedly corrupt or socialist scientists, is it lies from or Chinese agents trying to destroy the American economy with their alleged cynical lies and crackpot science?
Reputable climate change info resources
If you are faced with crackpot climate science denial and are unsure of how to respond, just direct them to one or more of these three sites. It reduces your cognitive load a lot. And, if you’re interested, you can learn about actual climate science in language you can understand.
Skeptical Science: systematically catalogs common climate denial myths and provides clear, referenced rebuttals at multiple technical levels, including non-science level.
NASA Climate: describes evidence and offers concise, visual, rigorously sourced explanations that directly undercut major climate science denial arguments about warming trends, causes, and projections.
US EPA Climate Change: provides plain-language explanations, data, and FAQs that debunk most standard climate science denial talking points by walking through the observational evidence and attribution science.
