I was planning to talk a little about the politics of climate change this week even before I heard Chamba’s program. I’d been thinking that the concept no longer was in doubt. A year ago, Dubya was saying that global warming caused by humans putting carbon dioxide into the air was an unproven theory which he doubted. These days, however, the Bush administration and even the Bushwhacker himself are talking the talk on global warming. It sounds like An Inconvenient Truth is getting favorable reviews from the White House Screening Room. But Chamba read an article this week which demonstrates that the opposing viewpoint is very much alive. People who claim to have plenty of science on their side still believe that all those carbon emissions don’t really amount to much, and the planet is just going through its normal ups and downs. When the scientific experts can’t agree, the rest of us are free to decide what we think on the basis of whatever political, social, cultural or religious biases we choose to bring to the argument.

We already know that the planet has a history of getting hotter and colder in cycles that dwarf the short history of our own specie, and scientists aren’t unanimous on the cause of those cycles. But I also have to believe that all those carbon emissions are taking some sort of toll. As usual with such controversies, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. I don’t trust those environmentalists who predict impending doom caused by human negligence any more than I trust those right wingers who reject any suggestion that humans ought to clean up after themselves. You can live with your dirty house for a while, but sooner or later you’ll either hire a maid, clean it up yourself or move.

In considering the political side of climate change, the scientific arguments don’t really matter. No matter what the motivation, if humans can be persuaded to keep their house a little cleaner, life will be a little better for everyone. If Oscar Madison can’t be persuaded to pick up after himself, you don’t have to be Felix Unger; you just have to make Oscar pay for the maid.

Now try to relate those analogies to the two key news stories on the subject this week. First, the United Nations calls a big pow wow of world leaders to talk about global warming and Dubya ducks it. To maintain the illusion that the US is on the bus, however, Bush calls his own meeting on the subject a few days later, inviting people from 15 highly industrialized countries, the ones with the most to lose by cutting carbon emissions. The administration’s message is clear and consistent with all its foreign policy. The US won’t truck with the UN unless the economic interests of the US are being served. If you think Bush was trying to upstage the UN on global warming, you’re right. You’re also right if you think that Bush snubbing the UN conference demonstrates something less than complete sincerity in talking the global warming talk.

Now here’s how California interacts with this scenario. First you’ve got Governor Arnold at the UN conspicuously getting on the bus which Bush refuses to board. Then there’s the state’s attempt, already endorsed by the governor, to saddle the car makers with new, more restrictive emission standards. To accomplish that, the state needs a waiver from the US Environmental Protection Agency. The news this week is that the White House has been orchestrating what amounts to an intense lobbying campaign to prevent the EPA from granting such a waiver. That would seem to be a normal administrative approach, since the EPA is run by presidential appointment, but at the same time, the White House has been lobbying Congress for support in opposing California’s attempts to reduce carbon emissions from automobiles. Cars are just a small piece of the picture, of course, but their importance is exaggerated in the oil based economy, and the White House involvement creates another opportunity to second guess the administration’s sincerity in talking the global warming talk.

A couple other stories this week hit the top of the pile of duplicity by the Bush White House. One is presidential politics which I’ve sworn to avoid until the first of next year, but I have to mention that the corporate press now is acknowledging with apparent relief that none of the Democratic presidential candidates whom the press has named "frontrunners," is willing to commit to ending the war in Iraq. The Bushwhacker told us a few weeks ago that getting the leading candidates on board with continuing the war was a goal for the remaining months of the administration. Looks like that goal already has been accomplished, so the Bush gang can turn all its energy toward the more ambitious goal of doing to Iran what’s already been done to Iraq. I’m betting the Democrats running for President and the Democrats in Congress will be willing to get on that bus too. So here’s a thought from a reader’s letter to the Chronicle a few days ago. Even though a successful impeachment of Bush and Cheney is politically impossible, it’s worth doing just to expose the details of their crimes to the world and start restoring a little of the respect the US once enjoyed in the world community.

A couple of mildly amusing things from the local paper this week: If you drive your car in Nevada City occasionally, you’ve probably noticed that the hub intersection at Broad and Pine Streets always generates some confusion. The Pine Street traffic has stop signs while the Broad Street traffic enjoys a full-time right of way. For some reason, however, many drivers on Broad Street are inclined to stop at that intersection anyway and wait for the Pine Street traffic to cross. The City Council has decided to capitulate to the obvious trend. At some unspecified time in the near future, it will become a four-way stop.