Talk:Alex Epstein (American writer)

Locking and Climate Denial

Not sure if this article should be locked as Epstein tweeted out a post asking for his wikipedia page to be revised to state that he is not a climate denialist. Multiple reputable sources here and here call alex epstein a climate denialist, and his writings, podcasts, and posts all make it further clear that he disregards the scientific consensus on climate change. not sure what can be done to prevent an unnecessary edit war over epstein's page. i hope it can be reverted to the earlier, more accurate and clear edit. --Charlesthe50th, Talk 02:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The page is being watched, if anything it's a good time to find sources to cite and prune the cruft. RAN1 (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

DeSmog [1] has quotes.

• “If we look at what has been scientifically demonstrated vs. what has been speculated, the climate impact of CO2 is real — but mild and manageable.”

  This is type-4 denialism: Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.

• “The fact that we have an impact doesn’t even mean that it’s net negative. I think the jury is out because there’s a lot of beneficial warming and then greening is good.”

  This is type-5 denialism: Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.

• “Well, you have one, you know one-point four degrees in 150 years, and a little over half of that is since major CO2 emissions began. So you have a small amount of natural warming and a slightly less small amount of possibly man-made influenced warming.”

  That is so moronic: because "1.5" sounds like a small number, he thinks there is a "small amount". Maybe he would be alarmed if temperature were measured in microkelvins? Then the number would be 1,5 million!

• “The whole premise is based on climate-related, climate predication models that can’t predict climate. So I reject that as a goal. … so in two degrees is probably better off anyway. But there’s no evidence that we’re getting there.”

  This is just run-of-the-mill motivated reasoning: he chooses to not accept the scientific models not for any valid reason but simply because he does not like the result.

He seems to think that he can deny all the details without being called a denier, as long as he says "It's happening". But actually, he is just an innumerate know-nothing, as much as any average Republican politician.

But I digress. I think we can use some of the DeSmog quotes in the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Well we can't post any analysis of those quotes if we can't cite a reliable source for it, and we can't even cite other wiki articles, so I don't think we can use DeSmog here. RAN1 (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The Saloon article cited for labeling Epstein as a "climate denialist" was clearly biased against him. We should not use evidently biased sources, even if they are from normally reliable sites. Socrates Finch (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Then it is a good source. We want sources that are biased in favor of good science and against bad science (such as climate change denial). See WP:PSCI. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

When the issue is a drinking problem people have no trouble recognizing denial. Yeah I drink, but I can handle the effects. Some alcohol is good for you. When people built modern civilization they were drinking beer instead of water, because beer was safer than water, so how bad can it be?

Every form of Yeah I drink, but blah blah so I don't have to change is easily recognized as denial of the speaker's alcohol problem. Being in denial about one's alcohol problem doesn't need to take the form of I don't drink.

The scientific consensus is humanity has a global warming problem which needs to be addressed. It is happening, it does great harm, we are doing it to ourselves, and we need to stop causing it. Denying that there is a problem which needs to be addressed is denying the science of global warming.

Yeah the climate is warming but blah blah so we don't have to change is denial. It also happens to be Alex Epstein's stock-in-trade. Epstein has filled in a lot of different blah blah during his career: it isn't warming much, the warming has good effects, the bad effects are exaggerated, we can put iron filings in the ocean, yada yada, all in service of his main thesis Fossil fuels good! Damn the carbon dioxide, full speed ahead!

The problem here as Wikipedians is we usually need reliable sources that call the spade a spade. -- M.boli (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

so I don't think we can use DeSmog here This does not follow. One can quote a source and not analyze it. I added the analysis just for the benefit of any new users who may come here because they believe Epstein's propaganda. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess the tweet that the OP refers to is this. I agree that desmogblog.com should not be used for this BLP. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: I've commented about this issue in the "Climate Denier in First Sentence/Paragraphs Modified" section below. Perhaps we could consolidate discussion of this into one section of this Talk page? --RL0919 (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

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

The Mark of the Kochs is indeed undue weight

I think the last part of the lede ...Epstein has a close association with conservative advocacy groups and receives funding from the Koch brothers... is not only undue weight, it is smear-by-association. It ought to go. I think we could keep the quote from Wilson "Epstein's work has been popular and influential on the right because it is a particularly fluent, elaborate form of climate denialism", but it does not belong in the lede. -- M.boli (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Mr Epstein says: When you see anyone claiming that I am “funded by the Koch Brothers” you know you are dealing with someone is either maliciously deceiving you or irresponsibly ignorant. I favour removing the Wilson quotes from both lead and body. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Two WP:GREL sources describe the nature of the association,[2][3] so those sources could be summarized instead of Wilson's WP:RSOPINION. Noting Epstein's denial could also be DUE. Llll5032 (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I think those two sources illustrate the problem.

• The Guardian article: Alex Epstein, the founder of the Center for Industrial Progress which DeSmog cites as associated with various groups connected to the rightwing billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch...
• The Slate article: ... he’s worked for decades at multiple institutions financially supported by the oil and policy magnates

In other words, both articles claim Epstein is contaminated by association with institutions which have received Koch funding. The Dreaded Mark of the Koch is placed upon Epstein's forehead by a hazy transitivity, not because of any noteworthy showing that Koch largesse is paying Epstein to do their bidding.

I think the for-profit think tank that is Epstein's corporate presence does not release its customer data. So it is not clear that we could reliably report who funds him in any case. -- M.boli (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

2023 Kochs

M.boli good that you corrected the false alleged Koch funding in the article. It may still be worth including the source which refutes this alleged connection so that other editors don't put it back in. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yahoo news and/or Freightwaves

Yahoo news / Yahoo finance is primarily an aggregator, they repost content from other sites. Sometimes they are useful as a convenience link, but they are not the source of the material being linked. In the case of the recent addition, that is Freightwaves.com, who were making a self published post about how great their own event was. We clearly cannot use that as a source to write promotionally about the greatness of Epstein's public speaking engagements. MrOllie (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. Outsellers was already aware that Yahoo is an aggregator, so there actions here are tough to understand. Also, even if the source were good, the content was too promotional in tone. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it was very promo-like. Outsellers, your editing pattern (nearly all of your edits have been about this person over a period of more than a year now) looks like you have a WP:COI as regards to Epstein. Is this the case? Black Kite (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Just made changes to the lede based on this statement. Thank you for pointing that out. Outsellers (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood what I said. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using the Financial Post. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

There's something wrong with quoting a financial site on a science encyclopedia, for the lead sentence in an science entry, which was paid to be on Yahoo news aggregator site.... Outsellers (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not see the financial post listed here, I could be wrong:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Outsellers (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The Financial Post (affiliated with the National Post) is a perfectly reliable source. There are no special rules for a 'science entry'. I'm not sure why you're mentioning the Perennial sources list. Most reliable sources will not be listed there. MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

So is Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2022/09/29/book-review-alex-epsteins-excellent-and-essential-fossil-future/

the point is to follow Wikipedia's neutral guidelines. Outsellers (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

And Forbes IS on the perennial sources. Outsellers (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Staff written content at Forbes may be, but that is WP:FORBESCON - so it is not. And in any case that is irrelevant to your attempts to delete the Financial Post. MrOllie (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, are you going to answer Black Kite's question a few lines up? MrOllie (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

And yes there are special rules related to science entries, which is why you cannot source the rolling stone past 2013 for this category. Outsellers (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with them. Please post a link to what you're referring to. Also, you really need to answer Black Kite's question. MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Quite simply, if you don't answer the question (and explain why your edit pattern is 99% Alex Epstein-based) before you edit the article again, you may be prevented from editing the article. Please read WP:COI. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read the talk page, there are multiple discussions about the rolling stone article. You really need to see work that has been established prior. It's almost impossible to talk to someone that hasn't gone through the details, or know the rules. Outsellers (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You still didn't answer the question, and you have now violated WP:3RR on this article, so you are now blocked from editing it. You may still edit this talk page. Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Removing the rolling stone and daily maverick as sources in the lead constitutes as violating Wikipedia's rules?

You mean to tell me that by following Wikipedia's guidelines I have been blocked? Are you being paid to be an administrator? This looks like a COI. Outsellers (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that violating WP:3RR is not following Wikipedia's guidelines. I would love to be paid as an administrator but since they haven't paid me for the last 16 years I don't think it's going to happen now. Now, are you going to answer my question about your COI? Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

How is removing warring edits that disregard Wikipedia's policies against Wikipedia's policies.

No I am not getting paid to do your job. Outsellers (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This was explained to you several times on your user talk page in warnings you received, you should read them again. MrOllie (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your inappropriate and untenable sourcing, and disregard for Wikipedia's neutrality and undue weight, and policies towards BLP, has yet to be explained. Outsellers (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"has yet to be explained" – just to clarify, editors do not owe you their time. Especially when you're edit warring with them and ignoring their advice. The guidelines are free to read. Most of the editors who are replying to you have good knowledge of them. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I know they're free, which is why I am wondering why MrOllie and you are confused about them. It should be clear what's appropriate for a lead sentence of a BLP, including the sourcing. Outsellers (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

We're not actually confused, we were assuming good faith. In fact we know that you're making up policies as you go - that's why you can never cite them when asked, and why you'll use a source yourself at one moment and then act like they're unusable the next. MrOllie (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The Dallas maverick, rolling stone, financial post, are all unusable for this. The fact that fly-by-night editors keep popping up and making edits whilst having no background knowledge, is not assuming good faith.

It's googling sources that fit your needs, at various points in this, tabloids, whilst disregarding what's been established prior.

It is the opposite of good faith. Outsellers (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

In fact the rolling stone article is still being used while it is CLEARLY against Wikipedia's policies. Outsellers (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yet we can actually remove citation to Rolling Stone and just use Epstein's Forbes response. Yet the content itself can remain 100% unchanged:

In 2013, Rolling Stone placed Epstein and the Center for Industrial Progress on its list of top global warming deniers. Epstein wrote a rebuttal in Forbes that criticized the term global warming denier, which he said was a smear tactic intended to liken critics of environmentalism to Holocaust deniers.He objects to being labeled as a climate change denier (with citation to Forbes)

Zenomonoz (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Although it could be argued that the current text with citation to Rolling Stone is simply a political claim, in which case, attribution to Rolling Stone is adequate. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

A bit confused why Outsellers is complaining in their unblock request about editors using Yahoo news as a source, when they were the one who inserted a Yahoo News source. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be a confused a lot, like when you first edited this page whilst disregarding all previous talking points. Outsellers (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, looking at your talk page, you should not be confused about "appropriate sourcing" Outsellers (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You cited Yahoo in your edit, and then called it a "poor source" in your unblock request? That is confusing. Your WP:UNCIVIL comments (belittling editors "you seem to be confused a lot") and accusing Black Kite of having a paid conflict of interest aren't helping. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm stating a fact that you claimed "confusion" while reverting edits that were resolved. Why are you making edits if you're confused? Further disregarding Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" Outsellers (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is my revert. I didn't claim confusion nor no consensus. I commented about confusion on the talk page after the revert about something that was certainly not "resolved". Wikipedia articles are not static. Consensus is not a vote count, it is about the merit of the arguments. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"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"

This was your first comment. So yes, you are disregarding what was previously established and making edits whilst being confused. Outsellers (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"you claimed "confusion" while reverting edits" implies I claimed that while reverting. No I reverted for WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, shown in the edit summary. The comment you just copied came after. Probably best to just close this back and forth for WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Outsellers, if you use this talkpage merely for attacks and aspersions, you are likely to be blocked from it also. It was left open for you so that you could make constructive suggestions, but if you're not going to do that, we're soon going to reckon that you don't need it. This is a warning. Bishonen | tålk 23:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC).

FYI, now they're blocked from editing this article they've moved on to adding info about Alex Epstein to the disambiguation page Human flourishing JaggedHamster (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, that makes everything clear. Blocked. Thanks, JaggedHamster. Bishonen | tålk 09:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC).

Issue in 3rd paragraph of lead

Looks like during Outsellers edit warring, the third paragraph has become incomprehensible. It now reads:

Epstein disagrees with the scientific consensus that climate change is dangerous, progressing, and human caused, but he disagrees with the scientific consensus that this warming will be dangerous and instead argues that the negative impacts of fossil fuels will be "mild and manageable"

I'm not sure how this should be rephrased, but perhaps the first part could be trimmed off... or perhaps a revision to an earlier version of the article so long as WP:RS support it. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I have removed it now. You are right, Outsellers introduced that garble earlier today. -- M.boli (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good now. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2023 (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)