I agree, he's full of it. I know some environmentalists who are not scientists themselves, but work closely with scientists to make sure that they are pushing t

I agree, he's full of it. I know some environmentalists who are not scientists themselves, but work closely with scientists to make sure that they are pushing to do the right thing (these folks are members of the Sierra Club, and they're very clearly not against the species...). I've also met a fair number of environmentalists who are environmental scientists. They actually go to the trouble of doing exactly the research that this author claims that they don't, but they also go quite a bit farther; the author's cop-out 80/20 rule fails on a number of levels, one big one being that the stuff accumulates. One example is mercury; once that's in the water, it's there. Fish absorb it through vegetation, and then predation. They can't get rid of it naturally, so it just accumulates in their bodies. As the upper-level predators like salmon and tuna feed, they ingest more mercury, and since they can't get rid of it, the amount in their bodies accumulates. The pseudo-science this author puts forth ignores that sort of actual science. There's not much in that article that's worth taking seriously. That said, there ARE environmentalists who don't have a clue about science and hide behind lots of rhetoric. They probably don't understand the science, and don't want to admit it. They're not an asset to the cause, unfortunately. Fortunately, in spite of their noise, they're actually doing some good simply by generating awareness that the issues exist, and they're not clever enough to get in the way of the folks who are actually trying to DO things to address environmental issues that matter.