General Discussion

I always like reading Michael Mann, who is quoted often in the article.

This is good summation thereof:

Epstein does not seem to be necessarily a "climate change denier" so much as a "it's probably real, but maybe it will have unforeseen benefits for the planet and/or humanity, long term" type. I'm not entirely sure which is "worse", though outright deniers (and especially the people who cry "hoax!" ) generally annoy me more just because it's such an incredibly STUPID thesis.

The other sort, the Epstein types, however are probably more dangerous, especially when they have the dough to influence what steps are actually taken.