Talk:Zbigniew Jaworowski

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

WJ essay

I found a PDF copy of the WJ essay [1] with the reference to Bashkirtev.

V.S. Bashkirtsev and G.P. Mashnich, 2003. “Will We Face Global Warming in the Nearest Future?,” Geomagnetism i Aeronomia, Vol. 43, pp. 124-127.

Oddly, the article itself has a different transliteration of the 2nd author as Mishnich vs. Mashnich in the actual footnote. Maybe just carelessness?

The journal Geomagnetizm i Aeronomia has an online edition, on Springerlink, but they only go back to 2006 online and my library doesn't subscribe. The abstract [2] sums it up as described in the referring essay: solar variation is paramount, and that they can predict a coming major decline in solar output by 2025. I wonder if the Russian language wikipedia has anything on these authors? I've begun learning the Cyrillic alphabet, but I won't understand any directions and I haven't learned to type it yet! Birdbrainscan 00:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rv: why

MN removed some useful stuff with an incivil edit comment [3] but fails to understand the meaning of references. "(Jaworowski, 2007; Jaworowski, 1999; Jaworowski, 1997)" are the papers; they are published; the deltoid link is not the source for their publication William M. Connolley (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is deltoid in there? Either find a
talk) 10:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Please read what I wrote, and think William M. Connolley (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did, the deltoid blog is an attack piece , this violates
talk) 11:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Let me try it again, slowly. The refs are to J papers. Those papers exist, and those refs are the ref William M. Connolley (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I`m not having this conversation on two pages, I have no doubt the papers exist, however there is no reason for the link to the attack piece from deltoid blog, end of story. Self revert
talk) 11:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I have removed the link again per
talk) 12:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
What's your thinking Connolley? That the practice of including external links to blogs as a convenience to verify the existence of published papers is restricted to this article - perhaps? Or that the caution Wikipedia asks editors to exercise with BLPs is uncalled for? Or that if *you* like a blog it becomes a reliable source? --Karbinski (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaworowski and 21st century

What is this nonsense that it should be a BLP violation to state that Jaworowski often publishes in the LaRouche publication? Its easily verifiable. Go to the 21st century website - search for articles by author. Its even a problem here on WP, where we can't add him to the list of sceptics, because none of the articles he's written can be referenced (because they are LaRouche publications - per ArbCom).

To me this quite frankly sounds like a misguided attempt to whitewash. Even Monbiot and Alexander Cockburn have commented on this[4].... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get the weirdest feeling that is not a reliable source. Why exactly does it have to have La Rouche in there btw? His work is published by 21st cen, not actually by Larouche, it is a definate case of
talk) 17:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
No, its not WP:SYN - we are not combining information that isn't already combined. 21st century is a LaRouche publication that is a fact. But if it really helps - here is one reference for it:
Rahmstorf, Stefan (2004), "The climate sceptics", Weather catastrophes and climate change – Is there still hope for us? (PDF), Munich Re, pp. 76–83 {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, no. La Rouche owns the company. To actually put that fact in when there is no need for it is syn. We don`t say when citing sky news that it is owned by murdoch do we? And i am unsure what that pdf you link to is meant to prove? I don`t see rouche in there at all?
talk) 17:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Thats strange Mark - since this is from that one (page 81):
Often cited in recent sceptics’ publications as a scientific publication is an article which appeared in 21st Century Science in late 2003, written by the self-appointed climate researcher Zbigniew Jaworowski under the headline The Ice Age Is Coming! Solar Cycles, Not CO2 Determine Climate.
Comment: This article by the Polish nuclear researcher is written for laypersons. Along with sceptics’ standard arguments, he asserts, among other things, that the warmest temperatures in the 20th century were reached around 1940, that a cooling of the climate has already commenced, and that a new cold phase will reach its climax in 20 years’ time. The periodical 21st Century Science belongs to the organisation of American multimillionaire and conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche. According to its own advertising, this organisation also flatly rejects the theory of relativity, quantum theory, and other achievements of modern science.
So - No synthesis. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, i must have misspelt rouche. However i thing you are missing the point. There is no need to have the name of 21st cen`s owner added to the article. That is syn. As i said above, we don`t say owned by murdoch when citing sky news do we?
talk) 17:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Did you read the text above? Jaworowski+21st+LaRouche - all in one sentence - thus no synthesis. LaRouche is a special case Mark... He is not even remotely comparable to Murdoch. That specifically is the reason that all LaRouche publications are deemed unreliable sources on Wikipedia. Attribution is the key when speaking about unreliable sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, by my quick research, Jaworowski has published dozens of papers over the last 50 years. Why are these particular ones notable, other than the fact that you can use them to link Jaworowski to LaRouche? There is no RS that makes this link. If you want to mention Jaworowski's body of work, you are welcome to propose a list of papers which are significant. I suspect that his work in 21st Century is probably not notable in itself to be included in a short list, but even if it is, the identity of the publisher is irrelevant. And when that publisher is controversial, making that association without rock solid sources (who explicitly establish the relevance of the association between Jawarowski and LaRouche and his conspiracy theories) is inappropriate per BLP. ATren (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because ATren, the papers in question are the most quoted ones in Jaworowski's career (show me wrong - please). They are the majority of Jaworowski's publications on climate change. etc.
And apparently you missed that i have cited a reliable source that makes the link directly --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, you are sourcing to Munich Re? What is that? It seems to be a private company's newsletter. The association between Jaworowski and LaRouche is NOT well-sourced, and for such a controversial association, it must be very well-sourced. I have reverted you again, explicitly claiming BLP exemption. Please take it to BLP if you believe it should be included. ATren (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a book (see: ISBN number) published by the worlds largest reinsurance company. You know the ones that insure other insurance companies? (amongst other things, when large scale weather catastrophies happen) They are most certainly a reliable source. The article in question is written by a well-known expert on climate science. What exactly is the problem? You are removing well-cited information. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even do a basic research of what you are reverting? The question on Munich Re is rather strange, as is your failure to notice that i actually linked the book site. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A book published by a corporation? Not even close, and you should know that. Honestly, Kim, I can't believe you're the same person that kept critical material sourced to half a dozen newspapers out of the Pachauri BLP, and here you're suggesting Munich Re as a source? Really? This item is not notable anywhere except in a few AGW blogs. Now please let's put this to rest. If at some point this issue blows up and there are multiple independent third-party reliable sources which discuss the connection between Jaworowski and LaRouche, then we can revisit.
(And honestly, even if this particular book were not published by a corporation, I would not agree that the single mention in that book merits inclusion here. Shall we start mining all the books published by skeptics about Climategate scientists and add those to the scientists' BLPs?) ATren (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Munich Re publishes quite a lot of scientific information and quite a lot of books on risks, regularly cited in scientific literature and in reports from international organizations. They are not just "any company". They are large enough to have their own publishing branch. Perhaps you really should try to read up on what it is that you are arguing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if this book is acceptable here, then I would assume that The Hockey Stick Illusion and similar material (i.e. published books) can be used for claims against Climategate scientists in their BLPs? We can start at the Mann page, a paragraph on Montford's criticisms of Mann. ATren (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This book can`t be used, it is self published
talk) 18:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
No Mark. It is not self-published. Just as little as a book from the National Research Council isn't self-published. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and neither is a book published by Stacey International, meaning they are all valid for use in BLPs. Is that what you are saying Kim? ATren (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and Oranges ATren. Not authored by an expert vs. authored by an expert. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so a passing mention in a book published by a corporate entity is acceptable because it's an "expert" (by your standard), but an entire book published by an actual publishing house is off limits because you disagree with the qualifications of the author? I don't think that is supportable. Either both are acceptable or neither; you can't have one and not the other.
So I'd prefer none of it be covered (in neither Mann nor Jawarowski BLPs) but if you insist this belongs here, then we should start adding material from the books on climategate to the appropriate scientist BLPs. ATren (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but its quite a lot more than a passing mention.
But i'm guessing here that not one of you have checked the authors of the book - have you? Here are the authors of the sections on State of the climate:
  1. de:Hartmut_Graßl "Earths climate and its changes"
  2. de:Christian_Pfister "Historical records as evidence in the climate change debate"
  3. de:Christian-Dietrich Schönwiese "Climate change in the Industrial Age"
  4. Mojib Latif "Cimate change and El Nino"
  5. Anselm Smolka "Climate change and Volcanism"
  6. Andreas Siebert (Head of Geospatial solutions Munich Re) "Detection of climate change by means of satellite remote sensing"
  7. Ulrich Cubash "Climate modeling and fingerprints"
  8. Stefan Rahmstorf "Abrupt climate change"
  9. Stefan Rahmstorf "The climate sceptics"
  10. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber and Gerhard Petschel-Held "The next 100 years - steering between tolerable windows"
Not just "anyone" - all are experts on the topics that they write about. The forewords to the book is by (amongst others) the chairman of
UNEP, The Secretary general of the World Meteorological Organization, The Director of the Inter-Agency Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]


(edit conflict) Yes kim it is, Visit publisher for more information the publisher is the insurance company who you are citing, self published by them to assess the impact of AGW on their own company

talk) 18:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

No Mark. You really should try to read up on this. Munich Re funds research and publishes on this topic, because they are reinsurers.
Yes they run a company to turn a profit, they self publish their own books to promote their business deals. That is not a reliable source, that is a vested interest, not suitable for a blp
talk) 18:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

A book published by a corporation? Not even close -

WP:IDONTLIKEIT William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Re-read what I wrote earlier: even if this is considered reliable (highly debatable since it's an isolated essay), it's a single reliable source for an extremely contentious association. It would be equivalent to sprinkling references to Climategate into the BLPs of everyone remotely associated with CRU -- in fact, that's more supportable given the extensive mainstream coverage of Climategate. ATren (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think so. You are basically refusing to include refs to ZJ papers in a ZJ biog. It is obvious *why* you don't want them in, but not clear at all why wiki doesn't want them in William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons are clearly outlined. See the discussion above. ATren (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those who do not know, this discussion is linked to, from RS/N, at this section. Weakopedia (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back again it seems. I still don't know why ATren took this stuff out William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a clearcut BLP violation, more tendentious editing from you. I will revert if you add it again. ATren (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References by 1-4 scientists does not mean that the whole scientific community or even a significant amount rejected his findings/papers, which is what is implied. If you want to say some or a few then that is different. By saying the "scientific community" with no qualifiers implies that everyone in the science community feels/believes that way, and no proof is offered that *EVERYONE* believes that. Thus a citation is needed to say the scientific community rejects his ideas. Also one of the quotes that can't be sourced now, says "some of his statements are wrong". So that even says that not all his views are rejected. So again more sources are needed to support that statement that implies everyone believe he is wrong about everything. 24.217.131.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Physician (!) - Physicist (?)

If the only reference to ZJ being a physicist is the

WP:RS
. Note in fact that the "journal" is noted for its lack of reliability. The necrolog states that he was a radiology physician - so as far as i can see that is what we have to run with. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at some source --I can't find it now-- which referred to some other science degrees. But seeing his recent, presumably definitive, obituary,[5] I see only training as a physician. Perhaps, while the spotlight is temporarily on this article, we could improve the intro a bit. While he may have been a physician, that is not the source of his notability.   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zbigniew Jaworowski. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Zbigniew Jaworowski. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crap refs

Refs 1-1 are all broken. Are there any RS's for him? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zbigniew_Jaworowski&oldid=1212454344"