Right. But what if you've had hundreds of scientists look at your "headache" and tell you that it's more serious than that and you do need surgery?
The proper analogy would be that "surgeons" would recommend an operation --- because --- well, that's what Surgeons do.
A good doctor would say take two aspirin and call me in the morning.
For a damn theory based entirely on computer models that are not even close to accurate on "predicting" past trends, that ignore major variables because they are more complex that we can model or compute, on a warming trend that isn't even a century old, using proxy data for measurements older than 200 years, is the equivalent of allowing someone to dig into your skull 30 seconds after your headache started because he told you that you will die if he doesn't. It's junk science at it's worst.
And you notice how this book huckster dismisses climate scientists who don't buy on to his religion? (Tools of big polluters). Yet this guy knows squat about climate science --- he's a freak'n zoologist yet he plays the guilt by association card on people infinitely more qualified than he. Not surprising since something like 60% of the IPCC sign-ons are from the biological sciences not climate or atmospheric scientists. (Most of the rest are "social" sciences, BTW)