Talk:Alex Epstein (author)

Climate Denier in First Sentence/Paragraphs Modified

The source that was included in the first sentence attempting to label Alex Epstein as a "climate denier" is an opinion piece written in the first person from an unverified author. It reads as a self-serving, name-calling, rant with accusations that, if included, should be framed as such, rather than fact-based attribution to who Alex Epstein is as a professional. -- Outsellers (talk • contribs) 18:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Peddling climate denial is what Epstein does for a living. There is even a link to an Epstein op-ed where he claims "man-made warming is mild and manageable, not runaway and catastrophic." As I wrote above, this is like the drunk who says yeah I drink sometimes, but it is mild and manageable so I don't have to do anything. The expert opinion is that global warming is decidedly not "mild and manageable". Epstein directly and incontrovertibly denies conclusions of the scientific consensus on global warming. The drunk who says I admitted I drink sometimes, so I'm not in denial doesn't get a get-out-of-denial-free card. We have multiple sources in this article pointing out Epstein's denial of the scientific consensus that global warming is harmful and cannot be ignored. -- M.boli (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Slate is considered a WP:GREL source, but is Jason Wilson's WP:RSOPINION in the second paragraph DUE? Llll5032 (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

There are at least three points that need to be considered here:

• This is a biography of a living person, which requires more scrutiny of claims, especially claims that the subject might consider negative. In this case, the subject explicitly disagrees with this label, calling it "a deliberate lie".
• If the only sources that call Epstein a "climate denialist" are critical opinions, then it is not appropriate to use that as an unequivocal label for him in "Wikipedia voice". It should be an attributed opinion of the sources that say that.
• As User:Llll5032 suggested, putting the opinion of a single writer the lead is probably undue weight on that one source.

Based on the above, it seems like the text calling him a "climate denialist" should be rewritten to make it clear that is the opinion of a critic, and moved into the body text rather than the lead. Epstein's own rejection of the label should probably be mentioned also. His tweet about it is an acceptable source for that rejection, per WP:ABOUTSELF. --RL0919 (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Labeling Epstein as a climate change denier seems unambiguous. For example Epstein wrote an op-ed essay where a main thesis is "man-made warming is mild and manageable", cited in this article. If somebody writes essays explaining the flatness of the earth, and they are serious about it, we could rightly put flat earther in the article. I also think it is basic BLP fairness to include Epstein's objection. His objection published in Forbes is currently reference number 18. I re-added that essay not long ago exactly because his objection should be noted. (NB: in that essay Epstein denies the consensus on global warming even as he claims he is not denying it. But that is not important.) -- M.boli (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

If only one source says it and the subject denies it, then it isn't "unambiguous" and should not be stated as if it were an uncontroversial fact. The interpretation of his statements by Wikipedia editors is not a reliable source – and yes that would be true for statements about the shape of the earth, if such a case actually arose. --RL0919 (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Multiple writers have noticed that Epstein denies the scientific consensus on climate change. Here are references that are already in the lede:

• Nitish Pahwa in Slate: The new style of climate denial... [T]he myriad ways Epstein misrepresents history and science and activism, whether by stating that “net zero” means total fossil fuel elimination (which is definitionally not the case), or claiming that increased carbon dioxide will just be more “plant food” (which is incredibly misleading), or spewing the pseudoscientific claim that only certain parts of the world will become warmer...
• Lederman in NBC News: Climate skeptic. Epstein has repeatedly cast doubt on whether there's a scientific consensus about climate change.
• Brasch, Colorado Public Radio: he did quibble with some widely accepted points of climate science during the debate. For example, he said he believes humans have contributed to “some warming” but not “run-away, catastrophic warming.” Scientists have long connected human society to a rapid rise in atmospheric carbon. The latest report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change also warns of the major toll climate change could take on humans, by fueling things like food shortages and massive wildfires, no later than 2040.
• Epstein himself, in USA Today: man-made warming is mild and manageable, not runaway and catastrophic.

Epstein, in Forbes, rejects the term denier, ridiculously redefining it as chosen to invoke Nazi Holocaust deniers. But in the same essay he denies the most important aspects of the scientific consensus on climate change. Viz: The real point of contention is not whether there is some global warming and whether human beings have some climate impact, but a) whether warming is a problem..., to which Epstein says No.

Epstein doesn't get to hide the blindingly obvious fact that he denies the scientific consensus on climate change by redefining the verb deny to be a slur analogous to Holocaust denial. Many authors have noted that he does so. It is completely factual. I'm not seeing how it is a problem to say it in his Wikipedia article. Nevertheless, as a matter of basic BLP fairness, I do support keeping the references where Epstein objects to the word. M.boli (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

To quote the lede sentence of Climate change denial: Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is denial, dismissal, or doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions. Epstein fits the definition precisely, and people writing about Epstein describe him thusly. -- M.boli (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

For every source that is being used as a "climate denialist," there is another source that contradicts it. Both this source, and this source from Forbes, praises Fossil Future and the authors of these posts, looking at their twitter accounts, are much more reliable.

As per the book, it is a another view at Fossil Fuels and there role in mastering the climate, and how they can actually help with climate change. This isn't like the Holocaust, and climate change is something that is ongoing and is the future of it is constantly being assessed. "Climate denialism" isn't equal to something like "Holocaust denier."

Furthermore, as stated previously this is a biography of a living person, and the article that is used in the lead is using Weasel Words, which is against the Wikipedia policy - meaning the source does not even call Alex Epstein a climate denialist directly, but rather uses a headline with those words and then mentions Alex in the article (same thing with several of the other sources). And the sources used in the Slate article do not make mention of Alex. Outsellers (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The Doshi Forbes review makes it clear that Epstein is a climate change denier, viz: one who denies the scientific consensus on climate change. The author writes: [M]ost of Epstein’s arguments have been authoritatively covered by some of the most eminent experts in the field. These include leading climate scientists disagreeing with the “scientific consensus” on global warming... and then goes on to list prominent climate deniers who reject the scientific consensus on climate change. Doshi was praising Epstein for being a climate change denier. The Tamny review barely touches on the subject, mostly it notes that Epstein refers to an economist who estimates the impact of climate change. (I took the liberty of fleshing out your bare-urls with cite templates.) Both reviews are quite laudatory, but one does not contradict that Epstein is a climate denier and the other supports it.

I am prepared to believe, after reading assorted reviews, that Epstein's latest book may marshal arguments and data from an impressive variety of disciplines in support of Epstein's thesis. But that is a different question. With regard to this article, these reviews would go in a section on Epstein's most recent book and its reception.

As for the weird assertion that Nitish Pahway uses only weasel words, I quote from his review above enumerating and calling out a few of Epstein's climate denials. Then he sums up Epstein's arguments writing the new style of climate denial is here. Pahway is highly sarcastic in his review, but hardly unambiguous or weasly.

I'm glad we agree that Epstein alleging an analogue to "Holocaust denial" is a red herring, irrelevant to this discussion. I quoted the definition of climate change denial above. -- M.boli (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to convince other editors that Epstein is a climate denier. What you need to do is supply sources that explicitly say he is a "climate denier" in those words or equivalents ("climate change denier", "denies climate change", "denies the existence of global warming", etc.). Can you please indicate which sources those are? If the sources only describe his views, which you can then interpret as climate change denial, then we should also describe his views let our readers do the interpretation. --RL0919 (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Then suppose we put in other language. Suppose we write something like Epstein disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change, referenced to the same four sources as above.

The most appropriate wikilink for disagrees with ... warming is climate change denial, but I suppose some people will dislike that also. -- M.boli (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course, some people will dislike that is not a reason not to write it. Otherwise we could not write that the Earth is billions of years old. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with RL0919 and others who can't find good reasons for the denialist accusation here. I'm dubious as well about "disagrees with the scientific consensus" though perhaps Mr Epstein disagrees with a political opinion about what must be done. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

If WP:BESTSOURCES are divided, a phrase such as "Alex Epstein is a climate skeptic (sometimes called a climate denialist)" with inline citations may be appropriate. Llll5032 (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Epstein's writings are a veritable Gish Gallop of reasons to discount climate change. A few minutes of looking though his talking points web page, I found the following:

• The whole idea that "climate change is a public health issue" is a fraud. Climate change involves slow global warming, concentrated in colder regions, in a world where cold-related deaths far exceed heat-related deaths (Talking points on the dangerous falsehood that "Climate change is a public health issue") This is one of Epstein's more often-repeated assertions. Another example: the huge positive impacts of CO2 fertilization as well as warming in a world where cold-related deaths far exceed heat-related deaths. (Taking points on the truth about the UN IPCC)
• A goal of limiting warming to 1.5° since the 1800s never had any scientific basis whatsoever. The 1800s were a very cold time (Little Ice Age) and the 1°C warming since then has coincided with the greatest improvement in human life in history—in large part due to fossil fuels. (Talking Points on COP 26, 1.5°C pseudoscience)
• The IPCC is not primarily a scientific organization, it is primarily a religious and political organization that manipulates science--including the work of many good scientists--to achieve the anti-human goal of eliminating human impact on nature. (Truth about the UN IPCC)
• When you hear scary claims about a “climate crisis,” keep in mind that climate catastrophists have been claiming climate crisis for 40 years. For example, Obama science advisor John Holdren predicted in the 1980s that we’d have up to 1 billion climate deaths today. (COP 26, 1.5°C pseudoscience)

Epstein objects to being called a denier on spurious grounds. We have many secondary sources that note Epstein is in disagreement with the consensus on climate change. I haven't seen any sources that indicate otherwise. If you look at the primary sources, Epstein's own writings, it is a slap in the face. He usually leads off by sounding oh-so-reasonable. He claims to be considering the human benefits as well as the costs of fossil fuel, and he agrees the CO₂ causes warming. Keep reading, and the Gish Gallop of reasons to ignore the consensus on climate change appears. He absolutely is in denial. -- M.boli (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking back at my own posts here, I can see I have become way too strident. Also, thinking about it logically, I can see people's point that there aren't a lot of secondary sources who use the word "denier". It is best if I relax and let people resolve it. -- M.boli (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Recognizing that I not only lost the discussion but seem to have shut it down entirely I:

• Removed "climate denialist" out of the first sentence.
• His disagreement over climate change is not his primary claim to fame -- promoting fossil fuels is. So the existing climate language in the next paragraph suffices. (I moved one reference.)

I apologize for having gotten too wrapped up in my own point of view earlier.

(This comment edited after I made the change.)

-- M.boli (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

2023 climate change

Was this resolved at the time? It is currently in the lead, and I reverted somebody who took it out. Confused by the discussion here. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This was resolved. It should not be in the lead. Outsellers (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t appear to have been resolved. Consensus is based on the merit of the arguments, not vote count. It seems this is skirting around WP:PROFRINGE. I think the controversial nature of his views needs some clarification in the lead. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

His books are not self published and this is considered Undue weight. Outsellers (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you confirm or deny a personal connnection to Alex Epstein? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I never said anything about his books being self published? Zenomonoz (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing is plenty good enough to keep this in the lead of the article. It is important context the reader should have early on. MrOllie (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

In what way shape or form does one opinion piece from an unverified author reflect the balance of the majority of sources?

This opinion piece does not merit an accusational, controversial, and defamatory statement in the lead of the biography of a living person, who has several books published by Penguin on the topic. This should be quite clear. Outsellers (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

That is not an accurate representation of the number and quality of sourcing cited by the article. MrOllie (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

PS: If you keep ignoring questions about COI and also throwing around legal terms like 'defamatory statement' you can expect to be blocked for legal threats per WP:NLT sooner or later. MrOllie (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Just read the first sentence..

An "American author and climate change denier.." Wow. Does that look like a neutral point of view? How can those two things even be in the same sentence. Outsellers (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

You have misunderstood what WP:NPOV means. It means that it reflects the cited sources, not that it is falsely 'balanced'. When the sources are harsh, so too will be the Wikipedia article. MrOllie (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

There is also WP:BALANCE, which is described in WP:NPOV as a guide for what to do when reliable sources contradict each other, or do not have any secondary sources. This is what removing from the lead does. Outsellers (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The preponderance of sourcing that we have on the subject supports what is in the article. There is no sourced contradiction aside from WP:MANDY-style denials from Epstein himself, and the article does mention that in proper proportion. MrOllie (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone source is a top 5 SEO type article from 2013 in the web archive. The daily maverick is not a reliable source, and none of them have secondary sources. Just because a tabloid type article claims "Climate Denier" doesn't mean someone like Forbes will release an article that states "Not Climate Denier"

Your sourcing tabloids on an encyclopedia, making for a really cringe first sentence for which it is clear what is happening.

All of this while banking on "Fringe Theories" (which usually allude to self published works) that fossil fuels are good. Outsellers (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Rolling stone is not a tabloid, and the lead summarizes the body. There are many more sources in the article on this subject there. MrOllie (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Well the Rolling Stone might not be a tabloid, but it should not be used for "politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011" and also "medical or scientific claims should not be sourced to the publication", per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. It can be used for "culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.)". Since we aren't discussion a review of a film or book he made, but an assessment of his scientific views, I'm not really sure why were using the Rolling Stone. Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to "climate change denier", but I do think rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change is a key part of Epstein's notability. Enough so that mention in the first sentence is necessary. "Climate change denier" is a succinct way of summarizing that situation, but if consensus develops against that term, I think lengthening the first sentence is better than affording the mainstream view of his advocacy less weight than is due. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

There is already a mention of his anti-science stance in the lede ("rejects the scientific consensus"). If that is important enough for the first sentence - it seems to be the thing he is mainly known for - that part should be moved up instead of duplicated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

How about:

Alexander Joseph Epstein is an American author who rejects the scientific consensus on climate change and advocates for the expanded use of of fossil fuels. He is the founder and president of the Center for Industrial Progress, a for-profit think tank. Epstein is the author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (2014) and Fossil Future (2022)

The note that Epstein doesn't like the denier appellation should go later in the article, it isn't lede-worthy. -- M.boli (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

He is most well known for advocating the use of fossil fuels, not for "rejecting the climate change consesus." Each and everytime a new Wikipedia editor arrives here, their first action is to improperly source some article from a quick Google search. This needs to stop.

Hence the NYT bestselling (published by penguin book) "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" 50.225.104.45 (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think all the reliable sources we've got in this article explicitly mention his rejection of certain aspects of the scientific consensus surrounding climate change. Hell, Epstein himself complains about that focus. Our hands are tied. We go by what the sources say, not what we think someone is most well-known for. jps (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think he gets paid to speak at government events. I think he made the best selling list for science list in the NYtimes.

I don't think any holocaust deniers are considered philosophers or authors, or get paid thousands of dollars to speak at government events, all around the globe.

And i think you don't know what you're talking about. Outsellers (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The word "denier" is not so magical as to equate all terms that include it. I disagree with your understanding of Holocaust deniers, but getting into would worsen the off-topic nature of this discussion.

Along with this comment, you added "public speaker" and "philosopher" to the first sentence, which was soon reverted by MrOllie. I think continued exclusion of those roles is best, given how infrequently they are mentioned in reliable sources, as best as I can tell. We could include something in the body about Epstein describing himself as a philosopher, per The Washington Post. Citing an event bio to support "public speaker" is untenable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought that hit piece up, because it had to redact a plethora of false information and disparaging content, turning it into a completely different article at one point. Outsellers (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

He is most well known for advocating the use of fossil fuels, not for "rejecting the climate change consesus." Someone who advocates the use of fossil fuels while accepting the climate change consensus would be an openly unscrupulous person who is in favor of sinking most of Bangladesh, Micronesia, Polynesia, Melanesia and so on, making millions of people homeless and generating streams of fugitives, killing millions of people by heatstroke and natural desasters, extinguishing many thousands of species, and so on. Adding the denialist part actually protects him, sort of, by allowing people to ascribe his position to ignorance instead of malice or callousness. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with M. boli's suggestion. I just implemented something similar, but with fossil fuel advocacy ahead of climate change consensus rejection. I agree that the denial of denialism is best suited for the body. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, let's face it, "Epstein disagrees with the scientific consensus that climate change is dangerous, progressing, and human caused,[3][7][8][9] although he objects to being labeled as a climate change denier" is equivalent to writing "Epstein is a climate change denier who objects to being labelled a climate change denier", which is somewhat pointless. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The new lead looks good: ... is an American author who advocates for the expansion of fossil fuels and who rejects the scientific consensus on climate change Zenomonoz (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Epstein isn't an author and lecturer and philosopher etc. who advocates for ... and rejects the science of climate change.. Epstein is a climate denier who advocates, writes books, and lectures. I think the attempt to add lecturer etc. to the lede sentence illustrates the problem. All these activities are how he practices his craft. Having said that, I think the current formulation is OK. But trying to load in the other activities forces the issue. -- M.boli (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

An important distinction should be made that Epstein does not deny global warming, only that global warming will be dangerous. Looking at the four sources ([2], [7], [8], [9] in the article) that have been referenced to prove he is a climate change denier, I see scant evidence to label him as such.

1. NBC News

This article labels Epstein a climate “skeptic”, not a denier, and deals more with Epstein’s comments on the Texas winter storm in 2021 rather than engaging with Epstein’s views on climate change.

2. Slate

The author summarizes Epstein’s book Fossil Future and writes that the book “offers a newer, more reassuring flavor of doubt regarding the consequences of human-influenced climate effects.” The keyword here is consequences, indicating that human-influenced climate effects themselves are not what Epstein is denying.

3. CPR

The Slate article references this CPR article, and both interpret Epstein’s position similarly. Some quotes in this CPR article include one from the moderator of the debate in which Epstein is participating, who says that “We’re not up here debating whether climate change exists”, indicating that no-one on stage, including Epstein, denies climate change. Later in the article, Epstein himself is quoted as saying that he believes humans have contributed to “some warming” but not “run-away, catastrophic warming”, which, because he is speaking in the past/present tense, is a true statement that does not deny climate change.

4. USA Today

I’m not sure why this article was referenced to prove that Epstein is a climate change denier, as Epstein wrote it himself, and as such designates himself a “climate thinker” rather than a “climate denier”.

Given this evidence, I think it is fair to revise Epstein’s article to make the distinction that he denies the dangerous effects we will face from climate change, not climate change itself. Brendanc12 (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

An important distinction should be made That is not an important distinction. See Climate change denial#Categories. He is an impact denier at the moment and may become another type of denier any day. All flavors of denialism have the same goal: prevent climate action and protect the Holy Free Market. They only differ in the amount of facts you have to ignore to uphold them, so it's a quantitative difference.

This article labels Epstein "Climate skeptic" is just a euphemism for "climate denier". It's the same thing. The euphemism should be avoided, it is dishonest and an insult to scientific skeptics.

no-one on stage, including Epstein, denies climate change That is a standard denialist trope and a red herring. Climate change denial is not defined as "denying that climate changes". A seahorse is not a horse either.

climate thinker If you actually check the article, you will find that the USA Today source is used only for statements from that source, not for "denier". (BTW, thinking does not help if one lacks the knowledge and capability.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

1. Source Quality and Bias: Wikipedia emphasizes the use of reliable, secondary sources. The initial source calling Epstein a "climate denier" is an opinion piece, potentially lacking the neutrality and reliability required for a Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia’s guidelines discourage the use of opinionated and potentially biased sources, especially in BLPs.
2. Labeling and Neutrality: Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy requires that content be written fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Labeling someone directly as a "climate denier" in the absence of clear, unbiased, and consensus-based sources goes against this principle. It's important to distinguish between factual reporting and the interpretation or opinion of authors.
3. Disagreement with Scientific Consensus vs. Denial: Epstein's stance, as mentioned in various sources, seems to be more of a disagreement with the severity of climate change impacts rather than outright denial of climate change itself. Wikipedia should clearly differentiate between someone who outright denies climate change and someone who disagrees with certain aspects or interpretations of the climate science consensus.
4. Biography of a Living Person Standards: Wikipedia's BLP standards are particularly strict. They require a high level of verifiability and care in handling contentious material. Given Epstein’s explicit disagreement with the "climate denier" label, using such a categorization without unequivocal support from a range of high-quality sources can be seen as problematic.
5. Attribution of Views: Instead of labeling Epstein directly as a "climate denier," it may be more appropriate to attribute this view to specific critics or sources. This approach aligns with Wikipedia's policy of attributing contentious views, especially in BLPs, to maintain neutrality and balance.
6. Balance and Weight: The concept of "due weight" in Wikipedia means giving prominence to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. If the "climate denier" label is predominantly found in opinion pieces or is not the predominant view in academic or scientific literature, it should not be given undue weight in the Wikipedia article.
7. Avoidance of Pejorative Terms: Wikipedia guidelines suggest avoiding terms that might be seen as judgmental or pejorative unless widely used by reliable sources. The term "denier" has strong negative connotations and should be used with caution, especially if it’s contested by the subject of the article.

While it's important to accurately represent Epstein's views on climate change, labeling him as a "climate denier" in his Wikipedia biography should be approached with caution, adhering to Wikipedia's standards of neutrality, source quality, BLP guidelines, and due weight. Outsellers (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Hob, I was not aware that being skeptical of or denying the harmful impacts of global warming qualify someone as a climate change denier. I thus retract my edit. Brendanc12 (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Although I do think that the distinction does hold some importance, as the term "impact denier" is more specific than "climate denier" and provides the reader with more information on what exactly Epstein is denying. You say that he may become another type of denier any day and use this as justification for using the umbrella term of climate denier. Until that day comes, however, would it not be more informative to say that he is an impact denier? Brendanc12 (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Impact denier -- that's good for a laugh. More seriously, anybody perusing Epstein's Energy Talking Points essays will discover a veritable Gish Gallop of denialist talking points. Denying that a consensus exists, warning about dictatorships, more people die from cold than heat, IPCC is political hacks, rising CO₂ concentration isn't mostly due to people, yada yada.

Perusing the Fossil Futures book (the parts readable online at Amazon) shows that Epstein posits something akin to a vast conspiracy he calls the Knowledge System keeping the truth about climate change and fossil fuels from the public. And we shouldn't believe the climate expert consensus because a hundred years ago there were medical experts who believed in eugenics.

For purposes of this article it may suffice to point out that his main message is in disagreement with the consensus on climate change. But we sure as heck shouldn't whitewash Epstein's climate denial with cutsey neologisms. -- M.boli (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

References

2024 climate change

"Skeptic" is still a euphemism for ideologically-driven opposition to science. See above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have new sources that support the specific characterizations that you want to make? The discussion above is people interpreting primary sources (Epstein's own statements and writings), or quoting sources that are probably implying that he is a climate change denialist but carefully avoid calling him one. We have a straightforward WP:BLP issue here: Epstein has explicitly disclaimed the "denialist" label, calling it "a deliberate lie". If you want to insert the "denialist" characterization as an objective claim in the lead, whether as plain text or as a link, then you need BLP-appropriate sources that explicitly state that characterization. To repeat something I said two years ago: "If the sources only describe his views, which you can then interpret as climate change denial, then we should also describe his views let our readers do the interpretation." The most direct characterization in the sources from past discussions is "climate skeptic", which was given in this news article from NBC, and which Epstein doesn't appear to have objected to. Do you have a better explicit source (not your own opinion or interpretation) to offer? --RL0919 (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute tag

Firefangledfeathers, do you still think the article needs the POV tag you added? Many thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

No, and thank you for the prompt, Zenomonoz. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Can someone explain...

... the logic and the reason of putting together two unrelated sentences (about fossil fuels and Covid-19) into the same paragraph, thus injecting A.E.'s view on Covid-19 into the article that otherwise seems to be exclusively about A.E.'s views about fossil fuels. By the way, the mention of A.E.'s view about Covid-19 in one sentence stands as an out of place element, in my opinion. This seems like an overzealous commitment to injecting as much as possible elements that would present A.E. as person committed to anti-science in the views of the author(s) of this WP article. This alone can be used by critics of WP in general as a place for presenting certain views and not a place for encyclopedic (neutral) articles.

Here is the paragraph in question:

"Epstein opposed shutdowns in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, and compared the virus to the seasonal flu. Asked by The Guardian at the time about coal interests being among CIP's clients, Epstein said he advised them about messaging but that they did not influence his statements." 70.30.93.195 (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph as requested but this edit a month later restored it.

I still think the paragraph reads as a non-sequitur: Epstein opposed Covid restrictions. He denied coal industry influence. The two sentences lack narrative coherence. The missing context is the Guardian article which linked anti-lockdown messaging and coal interests. If Covid had been a notable aspect of Epstein's messaging it might be worthwhile to beef up and explain the connection. But Epstein wasn't a notable part of the Covid lockdown debate. And Covid was not part of of Epstein's notability, appearing nowhere else in this article. So it was better to remove it.

@Zenomonoz: Please take another look. -- M.boli (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not sure. Maybe another user can weigh in. Black Kite has some comments on here so I'll tag them. Feel free to tag any others who have commented on the talk page. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Lead

There is language in the lead that was rewritten to account for contentious claims in the lead of a WP:BLP and take account of WP:WEIGHT for what is WP:DUE. Per WP:ONUS, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." @JaggedHamster, please self-revert and we can continue to discuss on the talk page until consensus settles on best language to include. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The language in the lede was worked out via talk several years ago. That Epstein "opposes" or "disagrees" with the scientific consensus on climate change is indisputable. The language was settled on because there are many references which support that but only few which used the "denier" language and some people objected to "denier." -- M.boli (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Consensus can change and be updated with the current sources and other considerations founded in policy. As currently written, it does not reflect accurate WP:WEIGHT and for a BLP is making claims which need to be removed or reworded. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

In particular, the issue is that this line, "Epstein disagrees with the scientific consensus that climate change is dangerous, progressing, and human caused" includes several unverifiable falsehoods. While it is true that Epstein certainly disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change in several ways, he agrees with it in others. For one, he disagrees with the degree to which it is considered devastating for humanity, and therefore the certain human or governmental actions or expenditures which need to be taken to remediate the climate impacts. Epstein does not however ever state that it is not human caused. He readily admits that it is human caused, just that he feels that it is not a existential crisis, and that a combination of nuclear power and fossil fuels (mainly fossil fuels in his arguments) are tools humanity can used to solve the very problems that they create. I propose a reword to the following:

"Epstein disagrees with the scientific consensus that climate change is an existential threat to human life on Earth, and Epstein contends that climate change risks can largely be mitigated by a combination of fossil fuel powered solutions and nuclear power."

Open to suggestions of changing or editing that further. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Existential threat to humanity?

I am about to change the part of this page that says

"Epstein denies parts of the scientific consensus on climate change. He agrees that climate change is largely human caused but does not believe that widespread use of fossil fuels is an existential threat to humanity."

Because I expect there to be suspicions about my political position on this, let me make it clear. I 100% agree with everything in Scientific consensus on climate change, but I note that human extinction isn't mentioned on that page as part of that consensus. Nor do I see evidence that Climate change and civilizational collapse is part of the scientific consensus on climate change. Climate changing? Proven. CO2 rising? Proven. Humans burning fossil fuel the main reason the CO2 is rising? Overwhelming evidence. Computer models are perfect and cannot possibly by wrong in any way? Wait...what? The only possible solution to climate change is to vastly increase the size and power of the government? OK, now you are coatracking in things that were never part of the scientific consensus on climate change.

So, is there a actual scientific consensus that we know for sure that Climate change mitigation, Climate change adaptation and Carbon sequestration cannot possibly work and that eliminating fossil fuels is the only possible solution? Citation Needed. Because if there is, our page at Global catastrophe scenarios#Climate change needs to be changed. That page says:

"Some have proposed climate change could cause total human extinction. Carl Sagan and others have raised the prospect of extreme runaway global warming turning Earth into an uninhabitable Venus-like planet. Some scholars argue that much of the world would become uninhabitable under severe global warming, but even these scholars do not tend to argue that it would lead to complete human extinction, according to Kelsey Piper of Vox. All the IPCC scenarios, including the most pessimistic ones, predict temperatures compatible with human survival in at least some locations. The question of human extinction under "unlikely" outlier models is not generally addressed by the scientific literature. Factcheck.org judged (2020) that climate change does not pose an "existential risk", stating: "Scientists agree climate change does pose a threat to humans and ecosystems, but they do not envision that climate change will obliterate all people from the planet."

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)