Bambu, I get occasional chances to hang out with people who spend a lot of time evaluating data on climate change and can tell you not one of them views Jane Fonda as a reputable climatologist. As for the Industrial Revolution, there is no dispute that it enabled humans to go from 1 billion to 7.2 billion. At one billion, a fossil fuel based system of production might be indefinitely sustainable. It's pretty clear that at 7.2 billion, not so much. Hence the need to adapt, with cleaner forms of energy and production. The IR fed billions, but it also created those billions. It's a phase in the rise of tech civilization, not a sustainable end point. Jane's analogy is ridiculous, I agree, and she does dedicated scientists and crafters of sane policies no service with her kooky and inflammatory rhetoric. I've always liked her, but she gets flaky when she strays beyond her areas of expertise.