Talk:Aaron Wildavsky

Untitled
I heard he taught a course at New York University and challenged his students to research the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicized environmental concern, but that they unexpectedly found that there was hardly any scientific justification for the policy at all. Can anyone help me research this? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * After a quick Google search, I bet you read it here: http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/warming.html Not sure that counts as a "reliable source", though. :) --Quuxplusone (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The author [Wildavsky] taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. &mdash;Timothy Ball, quoted in "Chemtrails - spraying in our sky" at "The HOLMEStead"


 * The following is a quote from the wise words of a netfriend:  'Googling for even just a few words from Ed's post gives you tons of sites/articles about... global warming. Surprise, surprise. Ed's just subtly agenda-pushing again and disguises it as "Could somebody else follow my specific clues and insert it so people don't accuse me of anti-global-warming edits again?"' . Sorry if this reads like an attack, but it's true IMnHO. TheresaWilson (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I like to take the stance of good faith and I think Uncle Ed deserves a better answer. Wildavsky did publish a book, posthumously, largely based on students' essays and work, which probably is the work Uncle Ed refers to: . I'm of the impression that the students mainly came from an institution at the other coast, Berkely, not New York.  Wildavsky gave the book a thorough going over while at leave at Maastricht, but terminally ill with lung cancer in 1993, could not complete it.  The book was continued by Arnold J Meltsner (Berkeley) and eventually published in 1997.  If I follow TheresaWilson's hint, chapter 11 is indeed on global warming, it seems to be Wildavsky's own essay, no co-authors.  It is mostly a "the jury is still out" contribution, IMO it's outdated by now.  While Wildavsky was just brilliant, this particular book ranks rather low on a list of his works I would recommend others to read. And Uncle Ed, I would be very careful tossing around the term "scientific justification", or lack thereof.  Wildavsky should be read for his general and very insightful views on the precautionary principle.  Let me end with his quote from Hilary Putnam "Doubt requires justification just as much as belief does" (p395 in that book) Power.corrupts (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, PC. My only interest in global warming in this project is the attempt to get articles about it to be neutral - as opposed to endorsing the prevailing theory of human causation. To be neutral about my own quest, what I'm hoping for is a shift from
 * Saying things like "global warming is real" - meaning that (A) there has been significant recent warming and (B) human beings are responsible for most of it; to,
 * Saying rather that "the theory of global warming" is supported by some scientists and opposed by others. (We should then list the reasons for and against the theory and give these reasons much more prominence than the names of organizations which endorse or oppose the theory.)


 * That's my idea of neutrality: we don't give even the slightest hint about whether the theory is true or not. Citizendium still does this, but for reasons I find utterly perplexing, Wikipedia no longer does. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blow me! I'm agreeing with Ed! The main point is causation of GW, so shouldn't your comment be on Talk:Global_warming rather than here then? TheresaWilson (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Bow elm! This tree has roots in two places. The main points are: (1) There is a movement asserting that human causation is the main factor in recent global warming; we should not endorse or reject this view. (2) The disputing sides on this issue have each accused the other of disregarding the science in favor of ideology, or in response to financial pressures; we should not say that one party to the dispute is innocent and the other is guilty. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, Ed. But this isn't the place for discussion; is it? TheresaWilson (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's sad that this article completely airbrushed out Prof. Wildavsky's under-the-table payments from the tobacco industry to help sow doubt in science proving that cigarettes cause cancer, and his famous role as one of the earliest climate change deniers. You can start with the Sourcewatch entry on Wildavsky, which barely scratches the surface. Wildavsky is a hero among conservative activists such as Michelle Malkin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.55.78.101 (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aaron Wildavsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150522110432/http://grawemeyer.org/worldorder/previous-winners/1996-max-singer-and-aaron-wildavsky.html to http://grawemeyer.org/worldorder/previous-winners/1996-max-singer-and-aaron-wildavsky.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)