If you buy into James Hansen's accusations that the Bush administration suppresses science, I'd enjoy hearing your comments comparing the treatment of James Hansen to Clinton's treatment of William Gray. I'd like to know how someone who's given over 1400 interviews in recent years can claim he's been muzzled.
William Gray, the Godfather of hurricane forecasting claims in a Discover magazine interview that his funding was cut off by Clinton/Gore.
If you condemn Bush, shouldn't you also condemn Clinton and Gore?

Here's an excerpt from William Gray's interview.

Are your funding problems due in part to your views?
G: I can’t be sure, but I think that’s a lot of the reason. I have been around 50 years, so my views on this are well known. I had NOAA money for 30 some years, and then when the Clinton administration came in and Gore started directing some of the environmental stuff, I was cut off. I couldn’t get any NOAA money. They turned down 13 straight proposals from me.
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/discover-dialogue/...hterm=william%20gray

No!

Your premise is based on all U.S. presidents are the same. Therefore if Bush is interfering then Clinton must have been to. This is nonsense.

Any accusations of interference have to be judged on the merits of each case.

Robbie, can you provide any rationalization for Bill Gray's funding being cut?

Who knows!

To assume his cut in funding is due to Clinton needs some "leads" as they say in the films. Or in other words further evidence, other than his own gripes.

Whereas:

"10,600 Scientists Condemn Political Interference in Science"

This 10,600 scientists complaining! Not just one guy about Bush's interference.

Slightly different scale, dont' you think?