But none of them are climate scientists and not more knowledgeable or better informed than they are, and two of them aren't scientists at all (unless you count "political science".)
classic attack the messenger rather than debate the message (cancel culture). Their bonafides are well established but once more for the cheap seats.
Epstein: He is the founder and president of the Center for Industrial Progress, a for-profit organization in San Diego California.
He identifies himself as a philosopher and the climate change religion is worthy of philosophical inspection. Epstein declares that opposition to inexpensive energy is "anti-human". IMO his arguments have merit. I am only about 100 pages into the Epstein book, but he offers and interesting, dare I say "philosophical" take on the climate issue.
Lomborg: Ph.D. in political science at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen. 1994.
Since government climate change policy is very much a political issue, it is in his political wheelhouse. Lomborg has evaluated the climate projections and proposed remedies for actual cost/benefit going out to 2100. According to his analysis the proposed reduction/elimination of fossil fuels has only slight impact on the actual environment, but huge economic costs mostly felt by poor residents, but even citizens of wealthy nations are unwilling to pay the thousands of dollars each these policies could cost if fully executed. His analysis of the recent "climate" bill projects out to a tiny fraction of one degree benefit by 2100.
==
Dr Koonin served as Undersecretary for Science in the US Dept of Energy under President Obama in 2011, his list of credentials is too long to list here but he was a professor of theoretical physics at Caltech. He has more that 200 peer reviewed papers in the fields of physics, astrophysics, scientific computation, energy technology and policy, and climate science.
Since Dr Koonin was involved in climate modeling he is uniquely qualified as a critic of same. His main beef was with the conclusions attached to climate research data. His book "Unsettled" is full of examples showing how the conclusions offered by "Climate scientists" were not supported by their own data.
I'll take my information from published climate science, as unclear as that sometime is, not from people with a potential axe to grind.
Apparently.... That the globe is warming is an empirical fact and not news. This objective fact is presented as justification for government throttling fossil fuels and cheap energy. I do not trust the government to be good shepherds of the energy economy, and the citizens self interest. They are motivated to accumulate and hold political power. The recent legislation is an attempt to buy votes for the Nov midterm to hold their razor thin margin in congress.
I very much want to learn from political experts, philosophers, and extremely credible climate scientists (with expertise in statistical modeling) to make sense of how we should respond.
We are already seeing bad unintended consequences of shutting down fossil fuel use, before we have green energy capable of picking up the slack. Buy a tesla, but don't charge it during peak energy demand.
Germany has just announced they are postponing the planned shuttering of two nuclear power plants.
Trust but verify, I trust these guys more than Senator Schumer or POTUS to lead climate policy.
JR
