Gore’s analogy yesterday continues to fascinate. Here, in brief, are the reasons why it is wrong.

Gore said the planet has a fever. He then went on:

“If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, `Well, I read a science fiction novel that told me it’s not a problem.’ If the crib’s on fire, you don’t speculate that the baby is flame retardant. You take action.”

First, as Iain notes today in the New York Post, earth doesn’t have a fever because the planet doesn’t have a normal temperature. So the analogy is wrong from its first assumption.

Second, if you’re baby is sick with a fever and the doctor says you need to take action, he will in all likelihood mean take concrete measures like: administer antibiotics or some other medicine, reduce the fever through cold compresses, et. Odds are he will not suggest “lifestyle changes” unless the fever is the result of an allergy and even then medication will probably be offered. Now, I know there are many environmental activists who think dear Gaia is allergic to humanity itself. But, if that’s Gore’s position he should say so because that is a religious sentiment and nothing more.

So, if the planet is sick, we should be looking for medicine. That would come in the form of bioengineering, a particular interest of mine. Gore sometimes suggests that global warming is akin to the asteroid which allegedly killed off the dinosaurs. But if an asteroid was heading our way, we wouldn’t be changing our lifestyle as a substitute for prayer. We would be building giant frick’n lasers and missiles to take the asteroid out. Similarly, if global warming is the threat he suggests we should be using technology to fix the problem. One possible solution would be throwing substances into the atmosphere that mitigate or reverse the effects of C02.

I think it’s way too early to do anything like that, but I think research should continue. What’s fascinating though is how much environmentalists hate the idea. Why? Well I think part of the answer is that what they like about global warming alarmism is that it encourages us to change behaviors and undermines the legitimacy of capitalism. I think it’s analogous to the hatred some on the left have for SDI/Star Wars. They wanted the threat of nuclear war to scare us out of our supposedly warlike worldview. They wanted that fear to make us abandon the Cold War etc. Any talk of actually protecting ourselves from nuclear weapons was the wrong path (this isn’t to say that there weren’t or aren’t good substantive objections offered by many, but this philosophical objection definitely played a role too).

Last, the sick baby and burning crib analogy is wrong because under such circumstances you go see a doctor, get a fireman or grab a hose yourself. You don’t call a politician. Al Gore wants everyone to think he’s not talking as a politician. He’s analogizing himself to a dispassionate doctor or scientist. And, I’m sorry to say, that’s the most ludicrous analogy of them all.

Update: A reader adds:

Jonah,

The “baby with a fever” example is flawed. The fever is usually a fact, not a scientific theory. But, if two people separately took the baby’s temperature, and they had different readings, I’m thinking they would have an open debate. They wouldn’t discount the other persons findings as political.Also, imagine if two parents walked in to the nursery and one said “Oh my, the cribs on fire….I’m going to grab Junior,” while the other said “Huh? What fire, I’m going back to bed.” I’m thinking there wouldn’t be a debate. You know.
Gore is beyond listening to a debate. I would think that if the facts were so heavily in his favor (i.e. not in the Earth’s favor), they would love an open debate without evasions Gore takes.
This is all ridiculous.