> Claude Pouillet greatly contributed to the development of climate sciences by estimating the solar constant, i.e. the incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere (also called total solar irradiance) ... He also evaluated the total absorption of solar radiation by the atmosphere.
Alas, it is in French and I am unable to read more than a few words of the language.
People who work in solar radiometry tend to come from astronomy, metrology, space science, and physics.
Your conceit (and I use that as the literary term; an "extended metaphor with a complex logic") is that some E.T.s provide guidance that 1) elevated temperature in people is 'very similar to the process in the human body'.
At best these E.T. are using Wittgenstein's ladder, a.k.a. "lies to children." This is about as true as saying that a pain on your stomach from a stomach ache is the same as a pain from appendicitis, is the same as the pain from taking a punch in the stomach. They all certainly cause pain in the belly, but the reasons for the pain, and the ways to resolve the pain, are very different.
The other part of the conceit is that 2) these E.T.s can say 'Planetary temperatures are common when a species, typically a young one, upsets the balance'. This implies that temperature increases are a common result of upset, but decreases, or other sorts of ecosystem collapse, are not common.
I am not ignorant. I chose 'Snowball Earth' precisely because it is not an ice age. Certainly these E.T.s must have come across cases on other planets where a new species ended up breaking the greenhouse effect that was keeping their ecosysem alive, and ended up with a snowball cascade.
Since the statements from this 'wise group' of entites doesn't pass a basic sniff test, they end up being straw puppets uttering only the words you think they should say. I feel like your conceit ends up being nothing more than a wordy attempt to elevate your personal beliefs, instead of the insightful metaphor you meant for it.