A very informative discussion that describes everything you would want to know concerning polar bears, seals, walrus, hunting, arctic conditions, etc by an expert.

Polar bear science

They don't call her Crock ford nothing!

She studies poop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...rockford#Controversy

Susan Janet Crockford (born 1954) is a Canadian contract scientist who runs a small business identifying bones and other items in scat of wildlife.[1] She is a blogger who writes about zoology and climate science, specializing in Holocene mammals. From 2004 to 2019 she was an adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria.[2] She is known for her blog posts on polar bear biology, which are unsupported by the scientific literature and oppose the scientific consensus that polar bears are threatened by ongoing climate change.[3]

Controversy
Crockford is a signatory of the International Conference on Climate Change's 2008 Manhattan Declaration,[13] which states that "Carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gas' emissions from human activity...appear to have only a very small impact on global climate," and "Global cooling has presented serious problems for human society and the environment throughout history while global warming has generally been highly beneficial."

Between at least 2011 and 2013, she received payment from The Heartland Institute, in the form of $750 per month, which Crockford states was to provide summaries of published papers that might not have been covered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report. This payment has been construed as an undisclosed conflict of interest, by blogs such as Desmog Blog.[14] Her response to such claims was a disclosure of the job description, how much she was paid, and the duration of the contract.

According to a 2018 study by Netherlands ecology professor Jeffrey Harvey and others, while Crockford has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature on the effects of sea ice on the population dynamics of polar bears, her blog, Polar Bear Science, was a primary source used by websites that either deny or are skeptical of climate change, with over 80 percent citing it as their primary source of information on polar bears.[15][16]

Crockford's unpaid adjunct professor position at the University of Victoria, which she held for 15 years, was not renewed when she came up for another term in May 2019. The University declined to give a reason.[17][18]

I figured you would not watch it which is too bad. You will deny anything in hopes of your fake climate change. The things others, who you no doubt worship, have been proven to be a crock of shit and is discussed in her interview. Why be so choosy? She's a scientist and yet you dismiss her data. Most of your climate doomsdayers are not even scientists. Some have actually cherry picked data so bad it hurts to see it presented.

You should examine all of the opinions. We consistently hear the doomsday arctic view but you can't even look at this to pick particular points to discuss. Pretty sad but I expected no less from you.

Climate change is real and constantly occurring. The falsehood is that humans caused it or can affect it. Now, it has to be said, there is no historic data on the effects of eight billion people and their activities on the climate; directly or indirectly. So, in that aspect, we are in new territory. Regards, Bill

Even science can differ in opinion and data interpretation from studies
Just let’s look at climate in last 100000 years during modern humans appearing
Was there steady climate the whole time?
Did all the species survived? If not, what was the cause of that and what circumstances did them in?

If not sad, it’s comical to see two individuals that each have IQ’s well short of average expostulate on climate change. You two are fucking clueless about what climate change is or isn’t.

This is an example of the greatest danger to our freedom and the continued existence of this country: The abysmally stupid have a voice.

Not certain how many extinction events there have been over time? Ice ages and global thaws.
All we need is two or three volcanic eruptions and we will be trending back toward an ice age.

If man is a culprit we might check the box on all the concrete in the large cities that in the summer months that never cool down as significantly as non metro areas.
I know the rural areas in north Texas are just as hot as the cities in the summer but they are 5-6 degrees cooler by early morning.
These cities keep growing and are giant heat sinks!

EZ

Still strikes me as an odd turn. Historically Outdoorsmen were environmental advocates. Hunters and fishermen advocated for clean water, healthy land, smog free skies and muddy wetlands. Most of us read Aldo Leopold and loved it, we've lionized Ruark, Hemingway and Sheldon for their wilderness adventures. I know that for decades Ducks Unlimited has cheer led for wetlands as natural water filters.

Now we've let the anti hunters take that away from us and we've embraced industrial. No more pack strings, we ride 1000cc utvs. Wifi in camp. Spot and stalk within a couple hundred yards is a waste of effort, ( wasted effort in the outdoors!) we can sit and snipe from 900 yards and get it on YouTube. "Dams on rivers to make reservoirs are a bummer for salmon but I've got a jetski."

The conservation of polar bears, ( as a game animal,) should be a priority, the conservation of all species should be. Letting anti hunters/ anti gunners have the environmentalist label has been very detrimental to us.

quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
This is an example of the greatest danger to our freedom and the continued existence of this country: The abysmally stupid have a voice.

You prove that with most of your posts old timer

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
I figured you would not watch it which is too bad.

But I did watch it.

The rest of your post (accusations) is also nonsense, not worthy of a response.

This "scientist" is a tool for Heartland for one example, which is a climate science denial/propaganda/disinformation and affirmation machine.

There is a lot that strikes me about all this. Odd - maybe?

Yes, historically "outdoorsmen" appreciated the environment and even advocated for a healthy environment for us and other critters. Those authors were loved by those liberal and conservative minded alike. Ducks Unlimited was about Ducks, who don't do well without wetlands.

So, what's changed?

I disagree in that IMO ant-hunters didn't take anything from "outdoorsmen". Historically, "outdoorsmen" were loggers, market hunters, etc. who decimated certain species and forests. Certainly, they enjoyed the environment but by today's definitions couldn't reasonably be deemed either conservationists or environmentalists.

First let's get a few definitions straight. Words like outdoorsmen, conservationists, environmentalists, resources, etc. are conflated, as you did in your post.

Here's one definition of conservation: Conservation is the act of protecting Earth's natural resources for current and future generations.

One definition of environmentalist: An environmentalist is a person who is concerned with and/or advocates for the protection of the environment.

Natural Resource: materials or substances such as minerals, forests, water, and fertile land that occur in nature and can be used for economic gain.

Although a conservationist and an environmentalist do have cross-over values, one difference is that more likely the environmentalist will value the environment and nature and critters for the intrinsic value rather than the harvest or economic gain value. But again, there's crossover.

One thing that strikes me as odd is that conservatives spend vast effort to fabricate disinformation, through orgs such as Heartland, for example, and have laid blame on liberals for deemed fake climate science. There's a fundamental worldview/ideology disconnect there, IMO, compared to real conservationists or environmentalists.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Still strikes me as an odd turn. Historically Outdoorsmen were environmental advocates. Hunters and fishermen advocated for clean water, healthy land, smog free skies and muddy wetlands. Most of us read Aldo Leopold and loved it, we've lionized Ruark, Hemingway and Sheldon for their wilderness adventures. I know that for decades Ducks Unlimited has cheer led for wetlands as natural water filters.

Now we've let the anti hunters take that away from us and we've embraced industrial. No more pack strings, we ride 1000cc utvs. Wifi in camp. Spot and stalk within a couple hundred yards is a waste of effort, ( wasted effort in the outdoors!) we can sit and snipe from 900 yards and get it on YouTube. "Dams on rivers to make reservoirs are a bummer for salmon but I've got a jetski."

The conservation of polar bears, ( as a game animal,) should be a priority, the conservation of all species should be. Letting anti hunters/ anti gunners have the environmentalist label has been very detrimental to us.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
I figured you would not watch it which is too bad.

But I did watch it.

The rest of your post (accusations) is also nonsense, not worthy of a response.

This "scientist" is a tool for Heartland for one example, which is a climate science denial/propaganda/disinformation and affirmation machine.

No, you didn't. The video is over an hour long.

Your complaint is who pays her. Okay, if who pays bothers you then you should be just as concerned for all the scientists (to also include all who develop products and medical equipment, etc) you believe in. Right? You have not demonstrated that at all. In fact, what you post is opinion pieces that only want to discredit with no data to support it.

All researchers/scientists have a group, government, company that pays them. Just one example would be when 'scientists' said DDT was perfectly safe. There are thousands of examples of 'science' gone wrong. Algore still isn't right either. Some 'scientist' there...

In short, I don't believe either Teddy Roosevelt or I agree with anything you said.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
There is a lot that strikes me about all this. Odd - maybe?

Yes, historically "outdoorsmen" appreciated the environment and even advocated for a healthy environment for us and other critters. Those authors were loved by those liberal and conservative minded alike. Ducks Unlimited was about Ducks, who don't do well without wetlands.

So, what's changed?

I disagree in that IMO ant-hunters didn't take anything from "outdoorsmen". Historically, "outdoorsmen" were loggers, market hunters, etc. who decimated certain species and forests. Certainly, they enjoyed the environment but by today's definitions couldn't reasonably be deemed either conservationists or environmentalists.

First let's get a few definitions straight. Words like outdoorsmen, conservationists, environmentalists, resources, etc. are conflated, as you did in your post.

Here's one definition of conservation: Conservation is the act of protecting Earth's natural resources for current and future generations.

One definition of environmentalist: An environmentalist is a person who is concerned with and/or advocates for the protection of the environment.

Natural Resource: materials or substances such as minerals, forests, water, and fertile land that occur in nature and can be used for economic gain.

Although a conservationist and an environmentalist do have cross-over values, one difference is that more likely the environmentalist will value the environment and nature and critters for the intrinsic value rather than the harvest or economic gain value. But again, there's crossover.

One thing that strikes me as odd is that conservatives spend vast effort to fabricate disinformation, through orgs such as Heartland, for example, and have laid blame on liberals for deemed fake climate science. There's a fundamental worldview/ideology disconnect there, IMO, compared to real conservationists or environmentalists.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Still strikes me as an odd turn. Historically Outdoorsmen were environmental advocates. Hunters and fishermen advocated for clean water, healthy land, smog free skies and muddy wetlands. Most of us read Aldo Leopold and loved it, we've lionized Ruark, Hemingway and Sheldon for their wilderness adventures. I know that for decades Ducks Unlimited has cheer led for wetlands as natural water filters.

Now we've let the anti hunters take that away from us and we've embraced industrial. No more pack strings, we ride 1000cc utvs. Wifi in camp. Spot and stalk within a couple hundred yards is a waste of effort, ( wasted effort in the outdoors!) we can sit and snipe from 900 yards and get it on YouTube. "Dams on rivers to make reservoirs are a bummer for salmon but I've got a jetski."

The conservation of polar bears, ( as a game animal,) should be a priority, the conservation of all species should be. Letting anti hunters/ anti gunners have the environmentalist label has been very detrimental to us.

Historically, hunters and outdoorsmen were about conservation. That really hasn't changed.

You are right that things have changed... but its particularly on the left with its penchant for coopting terms to get its way. The left has tried to use hunting groups and coopting them into their weaponized use. See the Sierra Club as exhibit 1.

What you term environmentalists used to be a much more broad based definition- it included conservationists and anyone who was concerned about the greater world around them for whatever reason. Now they are typically more identified as what used to be preservationists... These areas are only to be used by the elites who are "studying" the areas and humans should not be utilizing anything of them.

Of course you see the world through the lens that the conservatives are the only ones that fabricate disinformation.

The fundamental issue of conflation, as I see it, is the progressives/left.

Look at the common internet definitions of environmentalism and conservationism. If this is about the natural world, how does all this "equity" crap get put in to the definitions?

Ecofeminism? WTF?

The problem that has gotten so many folks to back away from being willing to be identified as "environmentalists" is that conflation of progressive politics with supposed science.

I certainly don't deny that weather patterns seem to be changing. Is it truly a climactic change? Dunno. The experimental evidence that can be independently verified is lacking.

Current global climate science calls it an experiment to create a model and then see how closely it aligns with historical data. That is a logical fallacy. Science calls for experiments that you make predictions and then they accurately predict what you observe afterwards.

Every last one of these models has been wrong, and usually quite drastically. In fact, all of the modeling as we go on has actually moderated their doom and gloom predictions. Al Gore and his if we do nothing, in 10 years the world will end is now going -35% in biodiversity in 70 years... from your IPCC report. Notice that while they mention equity in the report, your sources really minimize the comments on it.

Does that mean do nothing? No.

But it does mean that these international governmental panels are not scientific, they are political.

Conservation has nothing against consumptive use.

Its a science of determining what is sustainable and reasonable. Hunting, logging, farming and such are conservation. Mining and such are not classically conservation, but do play in to ecology. (actually from a scientific point of view, given the conservation of matter they probably are actually conservable, just not with our current limitations.)

Your current environmentalists have hijacked things by adding animal rights, equity, and such to what is fundamentally a science. These can be a philosophy and certainly are political, but are not scientific.

Again, the polar bears seem to be doing pretty well now. They are changing their habits, certainly- less ice hunting and more land hunting... but the cold that uses up their energy is less and numbers seem to be going up in most monitored populations. By conservation, we should be able to hunt more of them... but the environmental left has used "Global Warming" and a perversion of the scientific method (along with a misuse of the ESA) to stop polar bear hunting.

Some see these overreaches (which are observable and quantifiable) and because of this question the indirectly quantifiable conclusions that these same people are making.

Is global man made CO2 really directly related to the changing weather and climate? Maybe. But the folks making the claim have poisoned trust by misusing the mantle of scientific logic for unsupportable claims. (like equity)

quote:

Originally posted by Kanec:
Even science can differ in opinion and data interpretation from studies
Just let’s look at climate in last 100000 years during modern humans appearing
Was there steady climate the whole time?
Did all the species survived? If not, what was the cause of that and what circumstances did them in?

One of the reasons humans developed was the relatively stable, and moderate, climate. The problem isn't so much changing climate, the problem is that we'll have to adjust to that. And that adjusting means shifting where we grow crops, what crops we grow, shifts in our diet, changes in the way we build, where we live, how we're going to deal with hunderds of millions of people who migrate. Not just from the developing world to the western world, but also from low lying coastal areas within the western world. And yes, many species will go extinct, and that will also affect a whole lot of things (crop yields, predictability of crop yields, pests etc).

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
Climate change is real and constantly occurring. The falsehood is that humans caused it or can affect it. Now, it has to be said, there is no historic data on the effects of eight billion people and their activities on the climate; directly or indirectly. So, in that aspect, we are in new territory. Regards, Bill

Turn it around: Do you think 8 billion people have no effect?
CO2 is a heat trapping gas, you can check that yourself. Fill a clear bottle with CO2, and another one just with air. Insert a thermometer and leave them in the sun or under a lamp. It's just physics, heat trapping gasses, like CO2 and methane, are just good at absorbing the energy from sunrays. That was discovered over 150 years ago (and not long after they realized people burning all that wood and coal might have an effect).
We also know that CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for decades. Now think about it: Thousands of coal and gas electricity plants worldwide churning CO2 into the atmosphere 24/7, hunderds of thousands of plants doing the same, more than a billion(!) cars. Don't you think that would have any effect? Knowing how well CO2 traps heat.

The only reason people resist against it is because they fear, usually correctly, that if true, it will affect their daily lives, and they don't want to put in effort, or costs, to adapt. Change is risky, scary, and brings uncertainty, and they don't like that, they want safety and security, and like things to stay the same. So they seek reasons to justify that.

And that was my whole point
We encounter change of climate and then we adapt
Nothing stays the same and nothing lasts forever so might as well make the best out of it

quote:

Originally posted by Kanec:
And that was my whole point
We encounter change of climate and then we adapt
Nothing stays the same and nothing lasts forever so might as well make the best out of it

I don't think you'll find a lot of support here for elephants, trout, mallards and mule deer not lasting forever.

It seems natural to us to preserve an old bamboo flyrod, a nice shotgun, a sculpture, a piece of land, an heirloom clock for posterity or at least to last five minutes beyond our death. We don't maintain a flower garden or mow the lawn with the intention of it turning to ash before we die.

It's also natural to preserve clean water, green trees and blue skies.

Please list your educational qualifications to determine what climate change is or isn't.

quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
If not sad, it’s comical to see two individuals that each have IQ’s well short of average expostulate on climate change. You two are fucking clueless about what climate change is or isn’t.

This is an example of the greatest danger to our freedom and the continued existence of this country: The abysmally stupid have a voice.

I have no educational experience with climate, nor to you Mrs. Bobster, nor does Ann of Ravensbruk.

So what does one do? You have to rely on the people who do know.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Kanec:
And that was my whole point
We encounter change of climate and then we adapt
Nothing stays the same and nothing lasts forever so might as well make the best out of it

I don't think you'll find a lot of support here for elephants, trout, mallards and mule deer not lasting forever.

It seems natural to us to preserve an old bamboo flyrod, a nice shotgun, a sculpture, a piece of land, an heirloom clock for posterity or at least to last five minutes beyond our death. We don't maintain a flower garden or mow the lawn with the intention of it turning to ash before we die.

It's also natural to preserve clean water, green trees and blue skies.

I have great hope for human kind and hunting in general
Europe has lots of people but great hunting and conservation programs
Pessimist will always cry how bad everything is and it’s the worst
Optimist on the other hand will tell you that it’s gonna get lot worse so get out there and enjoy

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
In short, I don't believe either Teddy Roosevelt or I agree with anything you said.

That's an interesting and concise response. I have been a fan of Teddy since high school, when I wrote a thesis(?) on him, as a class assignment. I found my research so interesting that I maxed out the word limit in my assignment and got an A+ and recognition from the class and teacher. It was also when I discovered that my interests in nature, the natural, wildlife, exploring thereof, etc. exceeded all my other interests.

After that, I also studied John Muir, who was probably more preservationist than conservationist (to help clarify that distinction).

Anyway, you set me back in my chair a bit with that response, and caused me to re-think.

T. Roosevelt has been labeled with many words such as conservationist, environmentalist, preservationist. I think he was all three.

A quick search today will find the word conservationist most used.

================================================

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

How was Teddy Roosevelt a conservationist?
During his very active presidency, Theodore Roosevelt established approximately 230 million acres of public lands between 1901 and 1909, including 150 national forests, the first 55 federal bird reservation and game preserves, 5 national parks, and the first 18 national monuments.
===============================================
John Muir
1838 – 1914
Inducted 1985

https://wchf.org/john-muir/

Wisconsin Conservation Hall of Fame
Celebrating, Advancing and Sharing Wisconsin's Conservation Legacy

Wikipedia:
John Muir, also known as "John of the Mountains" and "Father of the National Parks", was an influential Scottish-American naturalist, author, environmental philosopher, botanist, zoologist, glaciologist, and early advocate for the preservation of wilderness in the United States of America.


Anyway, you settled that minor argument between us very well.

Another person who I have great respect for is Sir David Attenborough.

He's 96 years old and still going now.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/25...rs-breaking-world-re

CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT
The world’s most beloved 94-year-old naturalist says his Instagram record brings ‘great hope’

By Jennifer Hassan
September 28, 2020 at 3:16 p.m. EDT

It took less than five hours for David Attenborough to break Instagram’s record for the fastest accumulation of 1 million followers.

Britain’s revered 94-year-old naturalist beat Jennifer Aniston’s record by 32 minutes — an achievement he said has given him “important hope” for the future amid growing concerns over “the destruction of nature” and the looming threat of an irreversible climate emergency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64R2MYUt394

David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet | Official Trailer |

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WknYmUQ5DY

Sir David Attenborough - Greatest Speech Ever | Creators for Nature

Okay, back to the OP premise:

Here's something I bumped into during searching which greatly expands on the OP. Whether it's a legit premise or not is yet undetermined.

https://polarbearscience.com/2...an-with-polar-bears/

Attenborough’s Arctic Betrayal: New video reveals that terrorizing young children about climate began with polar bears
Posted on January 27, 2020

================================================

Okay, I clicked on "about" and find it's all Susan Crockford.

https://polarbearscience.com/about-2/

If we don't get some of that climate change soon here in Montana, I'm going to have polar bears in my backyard.

This whole topic on Polar Bears is associated with climate change, and of course loss of sea ice.

It's muddled with the same arguments.

Crockford herself is controversial among and in particular the science community.

Search on "is Susan Crockford a polar bear scientist?"

https://www.google.com/search?...nt=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1

The results produce a lot of her tooting her own horn.

But:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/category/polar-bears/

https://polarbearsinternationa...hange-denial-machine

Polar Bears and the Climate-Change Denial Machine

This study evaluated 90 blogs featuring polar bears and sea ice, using framing analysis to examine how the authors present material to readers. The analysis showed that the blogs fell into two camps, science-based or science-denying, with virtually none in the middle. The science-based blogs provided evidence and context, while denier blogs often removed context, misinterpreted examples, or resorted to attacks on the scientists.

The authors found that approximately 80% of the denier blogs attempting to cast doubt on threats to polar bears relied for their information on a blog called Polar Bear Science, by Susan Crockford. Significantly, as of this writing, Crockford has neither conducted any original research on polar bears nor published any articles focused on them in the peer-reviewed literature. Despite her lack of credentials, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate-change denying “think tank,” describes her as “an expert on polar bear evolution” and publishes many of her notes and “briefings” as if they represent science.

In spite of the name Polar Bear Science, Crockford’s blog omits and misrepresents scientific findings about polar bears and sea ice—promoting uncertainty with partial research outcomes, cherry-picked data, and obvious falsehoods. She also attempts to sow distrust of science, with false accusations against scientists.

================================================

https://www.vice.com/en/articl...-polar-bears-science

80 Percent of Climate Denier Blogs Reference This One Canadian Zoologist
A University of Victoria adjunct prof has become climate deniers’ go-to source on polar bears.

===============================================
https://www.resilience.org/sto...r-bears-ground-zero/

ENVIRONMENT
Polar Bears at Ground Zero for Climate Change and Climate Science Deniers
By Shaye Wolf, originally published by DeSmog Blog


Crockford, a zooarchaeologist, has never published an article on polar bears in a peer-reviewed journal. Documents leaked in 2012 exposed that she was on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, a propaganda machine that has cashed checks from Exxon and Koch Industries.

As a scientist, I used to wonder why climate science deniers target polar bears so fiercely: Why put so much energy into trying to obscure the plight of these magnificent creatures?

But the answer is increasingly obvious.

A recent analysis published in BioScience concluded that purveyors of climate science denial, including Crockford, distort the science around polar bears to cast doubt on climate change as a whole.

Because global warming is impossible to debunk, they try to undermine the perceived legitimacy of its mascot. In doing so, they attempt to chip away at the strength and credibility of all climate science by association.

But this year’s International Polar Bear Day was a particularly awkward time to peddle climate misinformation. After all, it followed February’s record-high Arctic temperatures, record-low sea ice and devastating new polar bear data.

At the end of February, temperatures over the entire Arctic north of 80 degrees latitude surged to more than 20 degrees Celsius above normal to temperatures normally seen in May. These were the warmest temperatures ever recorded in February, shocking scientists.

quote:

Originally posted by buffybr:
If we don't get some of that climate change soon here in Montana, I'm going to have polar bears in my backyard.

Haven't you noticed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...te_change_in_Montana

Climate change in Montana

Also:

https://www.google.com/search?...ABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:


Anyway, you settled that minor argument between us very well.

And so, 100 years later we Outdoorsmen relinquished the Conservation and Environmental mantle to Earth First!, Greenpeace and PETA.

I'm reminded of the modern NRA. What used to be a shooting fraternity and gun safety organization in now singularly political advocacy and it's chief is easily more polarizing than Trump or Hillary. our hunting and fishing societies equally so. I've read recently that fishing adds to global warming. sport hunting is species extinction, . Of course fur is murder and "Catch and Release" is torture.

I say we have let this all happen, we gave up this authority that Teddy championed.

What I'm saying, Scott, is that you "we" didn't relinquish or "give up this authority".

We, you, and I still have whatever it was worth in the first place.

We didn't "let" this happen. It happened despite our views. There is nothing "we" could have done to avert it. We can't fix it now.

But it's old school, and not moral high ground anymore, if it ever was in the first place. Things change. Get over it.

Sure, some idiots harp emotion over reason. But, as Doc says, it goes both ways.

There is no bonus for divisiveness. Both "outdoorsmen" and environmentalist have some common ground and good intent.

Find ways to get along.

Quit whining.