Instead of trying to impute hidden motives, you could just read it as the statement of fact that it was. I wasn't "going" anywhere with it. I've always been an

Instead of trying to impute hidden motives, you could just read it as the statement of fact that it was. I wasn't "going" anywhere with it. I've always been an avid conservationist and have actively worked on climate change for decades, I have a pretty good handle of the issues. But I also abhor the popular strain of ideology that believes we should obscure the truth or be dishonest about the reality when communicating with the public because we imagine they might engage in wrong think. I discovered many years ago that almost everyone is surprised to find out that "endangered" in this context has little relation to "almost extinct" because that is their intuitive understanding of the term and people are encouraged to misinterpret it that way. It comes across as misleading at the very least, which fosters distrust. There is evidence on this very thread that people are confused by this distinction. Furthermore, this has historically been weaponized by activists in ways that are indefensible in the pursuit of other agendas. If we are going to have adult conversations about these issues then it is imperative that everyone has the same understanding of the tradeoffs at stake and feels they are not being manipulated in bad faith. We have enough challenges with the environment, we don't need to invent new ones.