I'm just saying I wouldn't mind hearing what Jeffery epstien would say over the clean air act

Not what I'm saying. My point is that one flaw, even one as terrible as pedophilia, doesn't influence all of a person's opinions. Sure, I wouldn't ask Gandhi for his views on healthy relationships, and having learned about this I have lost pretty much all respect for him as a person. But his opinions on international politics should be reasonable because of his role as a leader of a protest movement, and likely aren't impacted by him being a pedo.

With your Epstien example, is there reason to think his opinions on climate science are more well informed than the average person's? Do you think his role of running his pedo island would impact his views on topics like the clean air act?

The trouble with your line of thinking is that we'd run out of acceptable people's opinions really quickly. No one is perfect, and it will usually be possible to frame someone's flaws in a way that makes them a horrible person in all aspects and never worth hearing out. When it gets to "Bob is a racist, Jim is a pedo, Fred is a domestic abuser" (to be clear, in not saying these are equally bad or anything, just some examples of 'this person is inherently bad because of one thing') and so on about everyone, who's left to be worth discussing things with?