• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Climategate Investigation Only Fuels Controversy

    Climate Science Exposed

    If the University of East Anglia report set up to investigate the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) was meant to put the Climategate controversy to rest in time for Earth Day, it failed spectacularly.

    The panel was led by Ernest Oxburg, who happens to be the honorary president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association.  Carbon capture and storage is an industry that definitely wouldn’t suffer should CO2 limits be imposed.  Also, Oxburg’s involvement with the wind-energy industry raises further conflict of interest questions.  With this in mind, the lack of depth into which the investigation went and the complete acquittal the panel gave the CRU, is not at all surprising.

    The supposed investigation lasted a mere three weeks and was only five pages in length.  Steve McIntyre, a leading critic of the IPCC report and editor of the Climate Audit blog, pointed out that the panel thought it only regrettable—and in no way acknowledged any sort of cover-up– that key facts and figures were tucked away in obscure scientific journals and omitted from the IPCC report. This is significant because, as he put it, IPCC presentations—and not the journals– “are how the climate science community speaks to the world.”  Apparently, these scientists did not want the world to understand that their data did not support their theory.  At least according to the well-known “climate-gate” emails which show that the scientists involved saw that these facts would “dilute the message.”

    McIntyre isn’t the only one who is not sold by this so-called investigation.  The Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Myron Ebel, said, “They don’t even make a minimal effort to rebut the obvious appearance of widespread data manipulation, suppression of dissenting research through improper means and intentional avoidance of complying with Freedom of Information requests.”  In the scientific community, where transparency and the ability to replicate results are everything, these charges are severe.  And unfortunately, the Obama administration is calling for harmful regulations based upon this faulty science.

    The same week the panel gave the CRU a free pass, President Obama made the claim to his Economic Recovery Advisory Board that pending climate legislation from the left is good for business.  The board would have been good to tell him otherwise. Spain and other European countries that have tried regulating CO2 emissions have suffered drastic economic results.  Heritage experts have done the number-crunching and their results show Obama’s statement to be blatantly false.  While the figures for the final bill would be slightly different than those calculated by Heritage experts for the Boxer-Kerry legislation, if CO2 emissions or renewable fuel standards legislation was enacted, you could count on trillions of dollars of losses in U.S. GDP, job losses in excess of a million, and trillions of dollars worth of higher energy costs.

    If the American people are going to have to bear the consequences of this bill in a time of economic hardship, we should continue to demand a true investigation into the—shoddy at best, deceptive at worst—findings of the CRU.  Allowing those that stand to profit from CO2 regulation to be the ones to investigate the science is like having a polar bear guard the seals.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    18 Responses to Climategate Investigation Only Fuels Controversy

    1. Billie says:

      Good write, Audrey!

      it is government favoritism of those (companies, al gores, epa, president obama) this benefits. Not the earth and not one other person. Governments Forced thievery of Americans that continue government mandates and regulations, logically will force them to close. Hence obama's manufactured CRISIS! Unless government is milking Americans, the PEOPLES INTELLIGENCE ARE MORE THEN EFFICIENT AND PRACTICAL. REALITY CONQUERS ALL!!!! ACCOUNTABILITY NEEDS TO BE CALLED AND ARRESTS NEED TO BE MADE!

    2. Billie says:

      Since when is government allowed to discriminate, show bias, and continue to be racist. PEOPLE HAVE THE FREEDOM TO BE THIS WAY, NOT GOVERNMENT LEADERS OF AMERICA!!!!!

    3. Jim Patterson (Phoen says:

      These people who call themselves scientists do not care about the scientific method or any honest debate or testing of hypothesis. Politics truly has invaded science and how poorer are we for that? Long ago I remember reading from a then Soviet scientist that getting into science there was one way to get out from under politics. Now, there is no escape.

    4. Scott Scarborough Ly says:

      You failed to mention that these "investigations" were like the Nation Academy of Science investigation of the hockey stick plot – full of sugary language twards the investigatee. But if you remove the sugar coating and look at what was actually said, it really is quite damming! Incompetent statistics when statistics is most of what they do! Maybe they are just trying to coverup their incompetance and there was no preconceived plot but the science is no good in any event.

    5. John A. Jauregui says:

      Question: What are the chances an infinitesimal (.04%) trace gas (CO2), essential to photosynthesis and therefore life on this planet, is responsible for runaway Global Warming?

      Answer: Infinitesimal

      The IPCC now agrees. See the IPCC Technical Report section entitled Global Warming Potential (GWP). And the GWP for CO2? Just 1, (one), unity, the lowest of all green house gases (GHG). What’s more, trace gases which include GHG constitute less than 1% of the atmosphere. Of that 1%, water vapor, the most powerful GHG, makes ups 40% of the total. Carbon dioxide is 1/10th of that amount, an insignificant .04%. If carbon dioxide levels were cut in half to 200PPM, all plant growth would stop according to agricultural scientists. It's no accident that commercial green house owner/operators invest heavily in CO2 generators to increase production, revenues and profits. Prof. Michael Mann's Bristle cone tree proxy data (Hockey stick) proves nothing has done more to GREEN (verb) the planet over the past few decades than moderate sun-driven warming (see solar inertial motion) together with elevated levels of CO2, regardless of the source. None of these facts have been reported in the national media. Why?

    6. JD. Republic of Irel says:

      http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=18125438453

      Carbon tax ix theft, plain and simple.

    7. Jeanne Stotler, wood says:

      As I sit shiverring, I have always said to those who pushed the global warming agenda. "it's a cycle, dummy" I had those younger complain about the heat, then they complain about the cold. For centuries there has been a fluctuation of temps. When I was small I got a sled, guess what, it didn't snow that year, same happened to my kids, I've seen a blizzard on May 1st, a heat wave in April, when we wondered where spring went. This past winter brought huge snow storms and broke records set back in the "80's, then came some days in the "90's this month, now we are in A COOL PERIOD. This next winter may be as bad, we will wait and see, Al Gore needs to ashamed of the money, I hear is near a billion, he needs to return his Nobel money and prize, he's a fraud and making a boat load of money on it.

    8. Aaron Huertas says:

      No investigation will ever satisfy people who embrace a conspiracy theory. When investigations find no conspiracy, conspiracy theorists assume the investigators must be part of the conspiracy. The global warming contrarian movement continues to marginalize itself. Every day, it become more like the HIV-doesn't-cause-AIDS folks and the people who believe the Moon landing was faked.

      Aaron Huertas

      Press Secretary

      Union of Concerned Scientists

    9. Bill - Forney, TX says:

      John J. actually gets into the crux of the issue. In addition, the scientists readily admit that they do not fully understand the interaction of CO2 w/ water vapor and how that would influence CO2's ability to hold heat in the atmosphere. The USA Today recently reported that the expected energy gained by the earth due to CO2 level increases can't be found – not in the oceans, not anywhere. Hmmm. Furthermore, there was not a mention of the fact that the more sophisticated ocean temperature measuring probes have shown a DROP in the past three years in average ocean temperatures. Let's not let THAT information get out! These aren't scientists – they're buisinessmen with a profit motive.

    10. Bill - Forney, TX says:

      … Oh yeah, CO2 levels were a lot higher in the atmosphere on earth as measured by ice core samples – during the last ICE AGE!…

    11. Lloyd Scallan - New says:

      It's all about MONEY! Grants to certain universities and indivisonnals are worth

      perhaps billions of dollars to continue to support this lie. Al Gore is now estimated to be worth about $500 million that could climb to perhaps $1 billion.

      Al Gore know this is all a distortion and has said so much in 1997. Again,

      it's all about MONEY!

    12. John Burdick, Glendo says:

      We need to quit participating in this scam by not using the scammers catchall term "Climate change". They are pushing the cap and tax theft based on "Global warming". Fact is that there is no warming, so we don't need to give them any way to wiggle out of it.

    13. Kirk Patrick says:

      Aaron Huertas wrote: "No investigation will ever satisfy people who embrace a conspiracy theory".

      Do you mean the investigation CRU did? About the conspiracy theory that the Earth is warming?

      Do you mean the CRU data that showed there was no Global Warming since 1995?

      Do you mean the conspiracy fact that swept that under the rug as they tried to "hide the decline" and "redefine what the peer review process is"?

    14. Kirk Patrick says:

      Aaron Huertas wrote: "When investigations find no conspiracy" (i.e. when the CRU could not find any evidence of global warming) "conspiracy theorists" (such as Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Aaron Huertas) "assume the investigators" (who they call 'hackers') "must be part of the conspiracy" (as his post here proves).

    15. Pingback: Wonk Room » A Response To Michael Levi On Iran And Climate Policy

    16. Steven Douglas says:

      More and more, the morons who managed to convince themselves that "the science" (and that term is used oh-so-loosely) is on "their side" are starting to reveal themselves as either blinder-fettered ideologues or substantially, mentally defective.

      Talking to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Warmists is often like talking to a bottle, or worse yet, a fundamentalist religious zealot with an entrenched, rigid set of dogma, and glazed over eyes to match.

    17. Tammy, Louisiana says:

      Glenn Beck did a program recently on the "Cap and Trades" bill which he swears to be true.. Challenges any government offical, including the president, to prove him wrong… I love watching Glenn because I am very skeptical about most everything by nature and he challenges the skeptic in me with facts that are hard to deny or to swallow, which includes this "Climate Control" bill, the reason behind it and who is behind it. Which by the way, I'm still choking on… His explaination goes more or less like this: (scary)

      This is your basic abuse of power, complete government control over everything and probably the only way to have this pass into law and get away with covering up a money laundering scheme where the only beneficiaries are the ones who approved it, pushed it and invested in it, which is all neatly put into place, ready to be signed so they may all begin to line there greedy, corrupt pockets with the "Green Bills".. Obama and his socialist followers, Goldman Sachs, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and let me not forget, Al Gore… (go to foxnews.com/glennbeck][To get all the gory details to read it and weep for yourself)

      It's time for our so called transparent "Government Elite" be held accountable for their shameless rhetoreic against American Citizens calling us to task on OUR moral sensiblities as "Priveledged Americans" to feel for those less fortunate like the illegal immigrants, bullied into humility and keeping us from speaking out for fear of being "Pollitically Incorrect".. Making us look at ourselves keeping our eyes away from what is happening in Our Nations Capital…

    18. a.n.ditchfield says:

      RULE BY BUSYBODY

      a.n.ditchfield

      ______________________________________________________________________________________

      The proper conduct of a rational being starts with respect for the minds of others.

      In science, this means the exposure of one’s ideas to the scrutiny of other minds, often with conflicting views, in the peer-review process. In the study of human affairs such respect unfolds into curiosity about the working of different cultures and the role of mystical experiences in them, aroused by religious practices. Ultimately, law and institu-tions for its enforcement reflect religious concepts of what is right and what is wrong.

      This was the approach taken by Richard Francis Burton, one of the greatest among the gifted Victorian scholars. His forty narratives of travels to exotic or uncharted spaces are well known, but his quest for ultimate knowledge through religious experience is revealed in Burton’s biography, written by Edward Rice.

      As a secret agent of the Indian Army, in mid 19th century, Burton dressed the garb that suited the mission, developed fluency in languages and observed customs on the troublesome Northwest border, along Afghanistan. Burton was so thorough in his inquiries among Sikhs that he completed studies of holy books and went through the rituals to be accepted as a Sikh sage and preacher. He dedicated greater and longer attention to Islam and capped it with his pilgrimage to Mecca, the site forbidden to infidels.

      At a time when Europeans despised what they saw as backward cultures, Burton and a group of like scholars approached them with open minds. From their findings emerged the college of oriental studies in Oxford, instrumental in shaping the na-tion-building effort that unified India into the biggest democracy in the world. European secularists would do well to apply their claimed scientific de-tachment to the study of the Christian religion as earnestly as Burton did.

      In the opposite direction the Mother of Par-liaments, now in her second childhood, is making real Orwell’s nightmare of 1984. This is recent. In the 18th century all Europe was known as Christen-dom. On the Continent the French revolution broke the political power of the clergy and, in the 19th century, secularists continued the hostility in anti-clerical campaigns that swept Europe. English-speaking countries were untouched by these up-heavals and have remained, to this day, the Chris-tian societies they were in the 18th century.

      Anti-clericals say that religious people are unenlightened enemies of science. Reason would rule the world if religion did not exist; there would be no more hatred to abet war and tyranny. Those of this persuasion preach scientism not science — the belief that science can explain all meaning of existence. They scorn religious believers and yet their own belief leads them to support things with no rhyme or reason and plenty of poison when scientism overreaches itself and morphs into Euro-pean ideologies.

      In an alternative view Michael Crichton, with the authority of a Harvard trained medical doc-tor and former professor of anthropology at Cam-bridge, suggests that religion may be hardwired into the human brain. Suppressed in one form, it returns in another.

      In a vast body of philosophical thought the Biblical kind of religion underpins reason. Histori-cally, Western science preceded the 18th century Enlightenment. The work of Newton can be traced to the biblical belief that the universe is the product of a rational Creator, who endowed man with rea-son so that he could ask questions about the natu-ral world. Noted religious-minded thinkers an-swered plenty of questions, from Newton and Des-cartes to Pasteur, to Mendel, Curie, and Zichichi. Their religious belief obviously had no adverse effect on the quality of their scientific work.

      Biblical ethics form the backbone of Anglo-Saxon political institutions that evolved over one thousand years; they are not a code of conduct devised by enlightened 18th century gentlemen, as some secularists hold. One gentleman of the time was Jean Jacques Rousseau who devised a plan for a society ruled by reason in obedience to a nebulous “general will”, that would come when altar and throne were overturned. What came from fol-lowing the plan? A Europe devastated by 25 years of war contrived by the ambition of tyrants. Their thought fermented during the 19th century and dis-tilled into the totalitarian creeds of the 20th century, a witches’ brew so intoxicating that it exalts vio-lence as the highest form of human activity.

      Even after the discredit of Nazism and Communism, the two spurious sons of the Enlight-enment, the effect lingers on. With the ascent of its secularism in the West, the drive to believe did not fade away. Contemporary secularists stopped prac-ticing religious faiths – but their urge was channeled into secular religions, as predicted by Crichton. Those prevalent today in leftist circles — scientism, relativism, environmentalism, egalitarianism, multi-culturalism, anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism — have a track record as enemies of liberty, science and reason. What is new is the spread of these ersatz creeds to English speaking countries.

      Take environmentalism, a badge that iden-tifies the modern “progressive”. It is irrational by Western standards. Ecology was a term coined by Ernst Haeckel, a biologist/philosopher anti-Christian politician who roamed forests to enter into commun-ion with Nature. His ruminations, based on a mysti-cal belief in the organic harmony of the universe, grew out of pagan ideas that reject reason. They demoted man from the biblically assigned post of master of creation to that of serf of demagogues beyond the pale of a rational brain. Haeckel’s ideas were expanded in the doctrine of Lebensraum, the pan-German geopolitics, the March to the East, eugenics; all converged to Nazism.

      This came about because ideology, when it twists evidence to fit prejudice, stands against rea-son and so sacrifices the scientific search for truth to a grab for power. Environmentalism’s current cause, man-made global warming theory, is such a grab by unsavory interests. Politicians look forward to trillions of dollars of revenues by taxing energy; government bureaucrats crave the power that goes with the licensing of energy production and the rationing of its use; the traffic in carbon credits has fallen into the grip of racketeers.

      Incredible is the spectacle of public policies designed to scrap industrial economies, based on a global warming hypothesis that may never be proven. It has alternative hypotheses against it and shows signs that much of the supporting “science” is at best sloppy and at worst fraudulent.

      Like other ideologies, global warming alarmism claims immunity to questioning, however sound the objection against it. In 1992 Al Gore pro-claimed that the debate about global warming was over and the science settled, with all the certitude of a lawyer who says: “Case closed”. This claim of consensus irks those with training in science. They know that original scientific thought arises in inde-pendent minds questioning conventional wisdom and that no case is ever closed; true science rec-ognizes no authority above proof backed by ex-perimental evidence. In contrast, ideologues hold nothing to be scrutinized in a rational way; only ideology thrust on the faithful — and imposed with witch hunts against doubters.

      Over fifteen years, 50 billion dollars of pub-lic funds were misspent to fabricate a “scientific consensus” that man-made global warming threat-ens the planet, based on questionable computer models that deliver what the political agenda of the sponsor demands.

      On the other side stand scientists who study and propose alternatives to the richly en-dowed man-made global warming hypothesis. Branded as Deniers, Flat-earthers, they find little funding for research, suffer character assassination or professional exclusion. That was the fate of many earnest scientists on the wrong side of the tracks, but among them are scientists with stature too great be dismissed with name-calling:

      · Richard Lindzen. Professor of meteorology at MIT. His studies are directed to the effect of water vapor and cloud cover on climate change, factors that he sees as much greater than man-made carbon dioxide.

      · Henrik Svensmark. Recently explained the role of cosmic rays in the ionization of wa-ter vapor in the lower troposphere and the formation of clouds. UN models assume a constant cloud cover over the planet but a 4% shift in it has a bearing on climate equivalent to that of all of man-made car-bon dioxide over two centuries. The impor-tance of this study of the physics and chemistry of clouds may well be realized.

      · S. Baliunas and W. Soon are two Harvard scientists who linked the long cycles of ice ages to matching astronomical cycles.

      In addition, renowned physicists with achievements based on mathematical models, question the valid-ity of models of climate with tenuous links to ex-perimental evidence.

      · Antonino Zichichi. The foremost physicist of Italy, discoverer of anti-matter, as scientific advisor of the Vatican, warned the clergy to stay away from the politics of global warm-ing that rests on invalid computer models.

      · Freeman Dyson. The architect of the merger of three versions of quantum elec-trodynamics, and arguably the greatest British physicist alive, studied climate com-puter models and found them wanting.

      · Claude Allegre, of the Institute of Geophys-ics of Paris, devised a dating system for rocks, based on isotopes, which revolution-ized the study of the chronology of geologi-cal changes. He recently published a book: L’Imposture Climatique, ou la Fausse Écologie, a title that shows a piece of his mind. An early supporter of the global warming cause, he turned away in disgust at the antics of environmental activists.

      The vitriolic attacks of environmental propa-ganda backfire when they vilify scientists of this caliber as shills of the big bad oil companies.

      The claim of Al Gore that 2500 United Na-tions climate scientists hold the last word, as trained professionals, has deceived a credulous public into believing that there is a climate science with predictive capacity, known to the select few. Until recent times no university offered a B.Sc. de-gree in climate science. Climate studies draw on one hundred different fields, such as: meteorology; oceanography; mathematics, physics; chemistry; geology; fluid mechanics; paleontology; botany; zoology; etc. There is no scientific consensus and no 2500 climate scientists around.

      Another false claim is that the climate stud-ies summarized in the four Assessment Reports of the UN since 1990 are based on peer-reviewed science. What the Climategate scandals revealed is the failure of peer review, when a narrow circle of researchers under the same roof reviewed their own work, carried away by the notion that they were saving the planet.

      What transpires is that peer-review of such studies remains to be done. If a paper on climate is found wanting, it should be withdrawn and all sub-sequent papers, based on it, should also be with-drawn, even if this means scrapping all Assessment Reports of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a prelude to a fresh and unbi-ased start. As they stand, such UN Reports offer no justification for radical public policies to de-carbonize the world economy to roll it back to an 18th century agrarian economy.

      Welcome to 1984, when the former Work-shop of the World would be denuded of industry in order to save the planet. Air travel should cease because it is against Nature. “If God wanted man to fly, man would have wings” is not a Christian belief; it is a tenet of environmental true believers.

      There are calls by the relativistic ideologues to do away with science, since they say it is uncer-tain and blocks prompt action. In its place they de-mand “societal values”. The legal requirement that public regulatory powers be based on sound sci-ence now takes second place to the “precautionary principle”. In a nutshell, it establishes that where science is not settled, bureaucratic whim trumps science. An egregious case was the ban on use of aluminum sulfate in water supply treatment of a large Australian city, because some medical re-search had pointed to a possible link of aluminum to Alzheimer’s disease, Further medical research has since refuted such a link, but the ban remains because it is politically correct.

      Such perversion by “post-normal science” finds a parallel in the secularist corrosion of political institutions of English speaking countries, previ-ously thought to be immune to it. The onslaught against civil liberties in Britain during the New La-bour years now spreads to the United States.

      New Labour introduced Anti-Social Behav-iour Orders (ASBOs), decrees that tell individuals to behave how the authorities want – or else… A local authority can issue an ASBO forbidding an individ-ual from walking down a certain street, from swear-ing in public or from wearing specific clothes, with no legal proof that the citizen is guilty of anything. ASBOs are rulings at the whim of local officials and on the basis of hearsay, not evidence. Those who disobey an ASBO may be jailed for five years with-out trial. It is now popular, but will come full circle against those who find it fun to pester neighbors over trivialities. Civil liberties that hark back to Magna Charta will once again be cherished.

      New Labour proposes ID cards, unheard of in English speaking countries; a list of suspect citi-zens in the hands of the powers-that-be. Only Czar-ist Russia had them, a century ago, when the world had abolished passports as a relic of 18th century oppressive regimes. Russians were then the butt of jokes: “A Russian has three parts: body, soul, and ID papers”. Mussolini liked the idea perfected by Lenin, and brought it to Italy, where citizens did not deserve the confidence of Fascist authorities. The ultimate use of ID is seen in North Korea: the owner of a bicycle must first call at a police station to re-cord the route he intends to follow.

      In 1997 there were few CCTV surveillance cameras in the UK. Today Britain has one fifth of the world’s CCTV cameras, more than five million, one camera for every three households. Some cameras are equipped with automatic number-plate recognition, face recognition and behavior recogni-tion, with software to analyze movements in images in search of suspicious behavior. Operators in bun-kers use loudspeakers to shout orders at those who litter, loiter, or display movements deemed suspect to them.

      Parliament had long refused to allow the creation of a police force in Britain, uncongenial with tradition and in view of the evil reputation of Continental police. But London was riddled with pickpockets. Robert Peel, as Home Secretary in 1829, got authority to form the Metropolitan Police, with the pledge that his “Bobbies” would remain unarmed. Firearms were kept under lock, and could only be carried by policemen after written authoriza-tion that laid down in precise terms the circum-stances under which they could be fired. In the 21st century, New Labour gave policemen arms and discretion in their use. There are now thousands of them on the streets, and an early victim was an innocent electrician, murdered by policemen while on his way to work.

      A quest in British schools aims at finding “socially conscious” children to be pressed into service of the government to “remind adults to act responsibly on our streets,” as an official press release puts it. Turning children into informers is the practice of totalitarian regimes.

      Pubs were traditionally free from restraints, as places where you could smoke, get drunk, shout, and swear to your heart’s content. Smoking is now banned in all pubs, clubs and workplaces across the UK. Toilets are now pasted with public health posters warning of the dangers of tobacco, alcohol, sexually transmitted diseases and drugs.

      New Labour has turned the pub and other things into outlets for its propaganda. In 2005, the “Football and Health” drive was launched to har-ness the mass appeal of football to promote healthy living. “Football is an important part of many peo-ple’s lives; it provides great opportunities to get across key messages about healthy, active lives,” brazenly justified one New Labour minister. Football fans, that pay to enter a stadium to see a match, are now served leaflets, they never asked for, about sexual health, the dangers of smoking, how much fruit they should eat.

      Couples who want to adopt a child to be brought up by a mother and father are rejected by adoption panels and vilified as “homophobic” when they declare themselves Christians. Secularists fear a biblical morality that regards an anti-human life-style as sinful.

      Since Biblical religion underpins reason and morality, the erosion of science and civil liberties in the West has followed the erosion of traditional religion. In its place emerges lawless rule by busy-body, as it has been for most of history and still is, in much of a world that gropes to climb out of it.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×