Am I the only one who sees these environmental groups as a thinly veiled attempt to win poorly educated liberals over to reactionary isolationism? They keep coming back to immigration - they admit that population growth is slower in industrialized nations, wouldn’t it be better for the world as a whole if these people from countries where population growth is fast moved to countries where the population growth is slow? Their children won’t be having 5 or 10 kids each - hell, the 1st generation immigrants probably won’t, considering how hard it can be to find a three bedroom apartment these days.
I don’t know about 1492 but wasnt’ the mini-ice age of Dicken’s time caused by coal burning and deforestation? In fact in all the castle building and heating of the middle ages werent huge areas left barren for wont of coal to heat those big drafty homes in Northern Europe? I thoght I saw something on Conections about this.
Man, it sure was fun going through all that Ancient History, waiting to find exactly which post was the one that resurrected this… 
C’mon, guys! ::: plaintively ::: I said “Check it out.” I didn’t say “Resurrect it.”
(As to the motive of the tree-huggers: I suspect political power and funds are the primary motives. They may be hoping to lure uneducated liberals to isolationism, but I haven’t seen it working, yet. It is still easier to find isolationists and immigration freezers among the right than the left in our society.)
I apologize, but there is too much useful information, here, (among the drek) to let this thread go quietly into that dark night and it was last referenced just four days too soon to be saved in the coming clean-up.
No, you done good, Tom. 
I’ve been looking through the older threads to see if there was stuff worth saving (bumping), but I hadn’t gotten to this one yet, so I’m glad you remembered it.
Please tell me where I’m being stupid: the cut-off date for threads to be pruned is for the last post to be after 1/1/2000. This thread had a last post date of 28/12/2000. So it wouldn’t have been pruned, no?
Or do I have to start checking out all year 2000 threads as well as 1999 ones?
pan
Yeah, you’re right, kabbes. Well, that explains why I didn’t find this thread in my review. Only threads where the last post is earlier than 1/1/2000 (i.e., 12/31/99 and previous) will be deleted in this go-round.
Sorry, I misread the date in Ed’s message. (Well, at least we have it saved for next year.)
WHEW! For a minute there, I was afraid John John had returned!
But we’re running out of fish!
<ducking and running>
Talk about surreal! I’d saved this thread and have been working my way through it in my quiet moments at work. I’m on about page 4 and y’all are deep into the fishing thing.
I saw this thing pop up and my eyes went wide in uber-surprise. Glad to see it’s just a “save-it” thing.