Chronicle of Higher Education interview with Reed Timmer

[joel ewing]

So if you were collecting data on your rooftop, and given a free path to send that data to a database, you would refuse since scientists would be able to get your data?

Nothing against collecting scientific data....I just prefer to "travel light"...and always have. I wouldn't be collecting the data in the first place. But have no problem with those that do.

 

[joel ewing]

Great post, Patrick. Geez, the day is not even half begun and you've already kicked some butt. Beautifully done.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Personally, I have nothing against Reed Timmer. As someone who has a fair amount of publicity, I understand "chase passion" and the desire to keep chasing (e.g., income) to support the passion.

The problem I have is when a production spins reality by only representing a very small element of what chasing is actually about, and thus bastardizes the rest of us by not presenting all sides. The antics seen on Discovery and other shows are often foolish, careless and unnecessary. Anyone who has chased for a long period of time understands this. I'm sure Reed would prefer a show that did not make him look like an idiot, but I doubt a production based on endless capped days and 400 mile busts would be attractive.

However, if productions approached rogue chasing with Jackass style reality, I think the shows would be even more popular. If they injected opposing views (as aired in this thread) it would be great. Interview chase-related scientists, rescue personal, law enforcement, etc. A logical counterpoint is never presented in the current format, which leaves producers no option but to try and legitimize the antics by creating "heroes," science and purpose, which most intelligent people see through. It's often laughable.

As for others emulating the dangerous storm chasing they see on television -- if a production goes to great lengths to legitimize the chasers they are featuring as "professionals" then they are making a statement that the chase presentations are indeed accurate and normal. Thus, viewers have a misleading perspective. Once more, if the antics were presented as hazardous "stunts" with no actual benefit other than drama -- then people would have a better grip on reality.

W.

 

[rdale]

Reed cannot and should not be resposible for what other people do.

I never said he was... You claimed that it's "good" he is getting people excited about storm chasing. I'm just asking what's good about it?

 

[William Monfredo]

That's the rub, that a "reality" show is not really reality. It's a lot of hype and spin, fantasy and entertainment. Even though Dis. Chan. puts up disclaimers, I am concerned that there is a gradual erosion of fear within the public, a slow demystification of dangerous storms... that may result in more deaths. There's almost no way to know, though, once a person has died, what they were thinking.

 

[Jim wyman]

I see Timmer as more of a entrepreneur than scientist. Gaining his PhD only gives him more credibility for his business. He's marketing himself through Discovery, his book and social media. Timmer may be interested in the science, but his actions show he's more focused towards the business aspect.

Regardless of what you think of the guy, he is generating interest in meteorology and severe weather. That can only be a good thing.

And that's the problem I have. Rather than using his PHD to LEARN, he may be using it as a stepping stone ( to be seen as credible). Not to mention the fact from previous posts that his PHD is not based on severe weather studies...

Jim

 

[Dean Baron]

I guess the question I have is, why do we care?

 

[Logan Karsten]

Yeah, but to study/research severe weather is not the same as being a storm chaser. That's where there is this mixed message being sent to those interested in storms. People don't understand that if you want to research severe weather, you need to not only get a bachelors degree, but go on to get a Masters/PhD, and it's extremely competitive. That takes a lot more work than just driving up to tornadoes with a big red truck.

 

[Todd Renshaw]

Don't you think that shows about doctors, lawyers, crime scene investigators, etc. generate a love/hate feeling within people in those fields as well? (Whether fiction or "reality".) The shows get all the details wrong. They make everything look so easy. They don't grab kids by the throat and scream, "I'll take YEARS of hard work if you want to do this when you grow up, Johnny". But there may still be a small percentage that watched the show, loved it and were inspired to pursue it as a career; to find out the real story behind the fiction.

 

[Mike Moore]

Don't you think that shows about doctors, lawyers, crime scene investigators, etc. generate a love/hate feeling within people in those fields as well?

That's a great point... as an EMT most medical shows drive me crazy. Trauma was the worst... every time they landed a helicopter on a street in downtown San Francisco I threw things at the TV.

As far as the article, which was the point of this thread, it wasn't that bad. Like him or not, try not to forget Reed is an actual person, not just a character on the moving picture tube.

 

[Jason Foster]

Hey mods...if you can...can you break off the discussion about peer review into it's own thread. I do want to reply to that at some point, when I get the time...I took it a bit off-topic here.

thanks.

 

[Rob H]

Dr Doswell had an interesting (well, all of his are interesting ) related blog last week:

Doswell's blog post (and a follow-up conversation with him after said post) left me with kind of a bitter taste in my mouth. There's a lot of "oh, how I pine for the olden days!" but never really any good commentary on why it was better or how to make the current state of things better. Yeah, it's great being the only one on a storm, but using that as the sole basis for comparison comes off as selfish. If you can't see any silver lining to the expanding interest in meteorology and have no interest in helping steer the hobby, then you just come off as an old man yelling at kids running across the lawn.

The thing Reed has going for him is that he's charismatic and optimistic towards the future. He's got 5000 Facebook friends and 80,000+ fans. When EAX says it's a gustnado and Reed says it's a tornado - 80,000 people start saying "to heck with the the NWS, I trust Reed!" That blind allegiance to a weather celebrity is scary to guys that have spent their whole life busting their ass off trying make scientific discoveries. I really respect Chuck's work, but I'd rather have dinner with Reed, partly because I feel like Reed wouldn't hit me with a stick if I said something wrong

So Reed will have his PhD soon, and he's arguably the public's favorite weather face. I completely agree with the detractors on certain points - he should focus more on the science, he should get some articles published, he should use his pulpit to correct his fans when they slight the NWS, he should teach them the difference between a watch and a warning and get them to buy weather radios. I think he's trying to do some of this, but I'm sure there are plenty of constraints on him. He's also getting paid to do what he loves - and any of us would have a hard time not doing the same if we were in his shoes.

He could be doing more, but I don't know his situation, and I won't blame him for "ruining" chasing - because it's not ruined. It takes millions of viewers, millions of dollars, several large media companies, and all sorts of resources to push a product like Reed on Storm Chasers to the masses. Even then, it's just a TV show. It might help inspire some idiot to use their cell phone camera on an EF-5 headed right for them, but I'm guessing they'd do the same even if Twister, Storm Chasers, Reed, etc. never existed. I still have hope that Reed will help steer the future generation of weather enthusiasts (and I don't mean this negatively) in a beneficial way. Throwing him under the wheels for not being a perfect chaser seems excessively critical.

[discussion on contributions by hobbyists/amateurs]

Is calling Jon Davies a hobbyist pushing the limits of the definition? He's certainly had some useful publications in the time that he's called himself a "private meteorologist".

 

[rdale]

I thought his degree was in meteorology? That would disqualify him for amateur status And notice he has submitted his papers for scientific review...

 

[Patrick Marsh]

It's on the edge of the definition And notice he has submitted his papers for scientific review...

Almost true. Although I am not aware of many (if any) publications in American Meteorological Society Journals, he has either authored or co-authored several articles published in the Electronic Journal of Operational Meteorology produced by the National Weather Association (which is peer-reviewed). See here and here for two papers from 2009.

 

[Mark Blue]

Here's a page from Jon's own website that lists all of his publications from several categories: Davies