Open letter from Chuck Doswell

[Tim Vasquez]

I am passing along the following email I received from Chuck. Any direct responses should be sent directly to him; his email address is available via Google.

To my supporters and detractors on ST:

Recently, there's been some pretty negative things said on the ST forum about me. Yes, the word gets back to me, eventually. Generally speaking, I pay these no heed. Opinions about me vary, and I can understand and accept that. I speak my mind, but I respect the opinions of others even when I disagree with them.

Some well-meaning supporters of mine have said, in effect, that what I've done in the past gives me the right to say what I think. Other posters on the ST forum have maintained that what I've done as a scientist and/or chaser doesn't give me the right to say what I think. Actually, I agree with the latter point of view. My right to say what I think is NOT based on my accomplishments - rather, it's based on the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
>> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
>> the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
>> peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
>> redress of grievances.

That is to say, my right to say what I think is guaranteed by the US Constitution, not through my accomplishments. If you have a problem with what I have to say, or what you might believe I've said, you have the right to email me and make your point. My email address is not a secret. Virtually none of my detractors on the ST Forum have ever bothered to confront me directly about issues where they believe we disagree. You're certainly free to express your opinions on the ST Forum (or elsewhere), but it's difficult for me to have much respect for an unwillingness to face me directly with your concerns. If you can't say it to my face, should you be saying it at all? What kind of courage regarding your convictions do you have? The silence is deafening ...

About my upcoming talk at the National Severe Weather Workshop: I've been criticized already on the ST Forum on the basis of the TITLE of my talk, which was deliberately chosen to be provocative. No one as yet has any idea what I'm going to present, so all of this exchange is not based on what I'm presenting, but on what some of my detractors have speculated that I MIGHT be saying. This is an exceedingly weak basis on which to form an opinion about my presentation. I certainly have no capability to silence my detractors, nor do I wish to silence them, but one would hope that ad hominem attacks at least would have a more substantive basis. Perhaps some among my detractors know something about their own personal level of responsibility during storm chases and have chosen to launch a preemptive attack?

I am not now, nor will I ever be, a subscriber to the ST forum, precisely because this forum (like many others) has a long history of tolerating ad hominem attacks on people, some of whom aren't even forum members. This will be my final word on this (or any other) subject via this Forum. Thanks to Tim Vasquez for posting this. Have a great day

... Chuck Doswell

 

[Mikey Gribble]

Mr. Doswell certainly does have the right to say whatever he wants in this country. I never argued that he didn't, nor do I remember anybody else saying that. What I did say on the matter is that what he said was inexcuseable and he wasn't going to get a free pass from me just because he has written a few books. I am a huge advocate of free speech. People can make absurd comments all day long, but free speech makes no guarantees of freedom from repercussions for your statements. The same right that protects your right to say what you want protects others right to respond to those statements. It's a two way street.

Chuck said...
"You're certainly free to express your opinions on the ST Forum (or elsewhere), but it's difficult for me to have much respect for an unwillingness to face me directly with your concerns. If you can't say it to my face, should you be saying it at all? What kind of courage regarding your convictions do you have? The silence is deafening ..."

Back the train up... I don't understand how you can criticize people for posting on ST instead of criticizing the person they have a problem with directly (via email). Isn't that exactly what Mr. Doswell and others did when they criticized the "yahoos"? The comments that set off this whole deal were made by Chuck and others at a public speaking event, on blogs, and on forums. Those are all arenas open to public view (for the most part). Those comments weren't made directly to the "yahoos" in question. Now Chuck is turning around criticizing his "detractors" for criticizing him on stormtrack instead of doing it in an email. Stormtrack is an arena open to public view, just like the places Chuck and others made their comments. So what's the difference between how/where Chuck made his statements vs. how/where his "detractors" made theirs? There is no difference. That screams of hypocrisy IMO. Nobody thinks they are hiding by posting statements on stormtrack. Like these statements aren't going to get back to Doswell. I can copy and paste this to an email if that is how Mr. Doswell would prefer it, but as I stated in the other thread on this issue, my last email to Doswell went unanswered.
This is being framed by Chuck as cowardly attacks based on assumptions and speculation. I can only speak for myself, but my criticisms were based on quotes. There was no speculation of any kind. Mr. Doswell has made many statements about how the "yahoo" chasers should/would be weeded out by getting killed in some sort of short term evolution of storm chasers. Those comments are absurd IMO and if you want to make controversial statements like that, great, I don't care. But you ought to be ready to take criticism for it, and that's what you got.

This all goes back to letting everybody do as they please. I'll chase my way, you chase your way. As long as we do that nobody has any problems. I think my way of chasing is responsible, maybe you don't, but until you start paying the bills I'm not going to put a whole lot of weight in what you say. Chuck was the one that came out and decided to start criticizing another group of chasers and trivializing their deaths (making comments about them getting killed). It seems like a lot of chasers are so damn worried about how other people might make them look. That's ridiculous IMO. Are you really that afraid that another chaser speeding might tarnish your reputation? If something that unlikely and insignificant makes you worry then it's time to lighten up IMO. There are bigger tragedies in the world than me going 15mph over the speed limit on an open highway trying to catch up to a tornado.
I am not getting wrapped up in another one of these arguments, so along with Chuck, this is all I'm going to say.

 

[Steve Miller]

I am not now, nor will I ever be, a subscriber to the ST forum, precisely because this forum (like many others) has a long history of tolerating ad hominem attacks on people, some of whom aren't even forum members.

And there's another ding against ST. By this time next year, with CFDG actively recruiting and Doswell saying we all suck, this forum will be dissolved. Tim, why would you allow this to make it to the masses?

I agree with Gribble on the fact that only a few Doswell “detractors” were present on the ST forum through all this (maybe 5?). The ST member’s E-mail’s are equally easy to find and sending this letter to them personally rather than via Tim to the 1000+ members here who had nothing to do with this is simply bad protocol.

The whole reemergence of the Doswell/CFDG issue via the “open letters” of late is something I can’t understand. The issue has been dead and laid to rest for a while now. I ask to this group: why bring more attention to all of this?

 

[Mike Peregrine]

I'm going to take the liberty to re-word this open letter just a bit in my own words (edits are highlighted for emphasis):

Recently, there's been some pretty negative things said on various blogs and in lectures about various Stormtrack members and other chasers. Yes, the word gets back to us, eventually. Generally speaking, we pay these no heed. Opinions about us vary, and we can understand and accept that. We speak our mind, but we respect the opinions of others even when we disagree with them.

Some well-meaning supporters have said, in effect, that what we've done in the past gives us the right to say what we think. Other posters on the ST forum have maintained that what we've done as scientists and/or chasers doesn't give us the right to say what we think. Actually, we agree with the latter point of view. Our right to say what we think is NOT based on accomplishments - rather, it's based on the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

>> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
>> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
>> the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
>> peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
>> redress of grievances.

That is to say, our right to say what we think is guaranteed by the US Constitution, not through our accomplishments. If you have a problem with what we have to say, or what you might believe we've said, you have the right to email us and make your point. Our email addresses are not a secret. Virtually none of our detractors have ever bothered to confront us directly about issues where they believe we disagree. You're certainly free to express your opinions in your blogs or personal email lists (or elsewhere), but it's difficult for us to have much respect for an unwillingness to face us directly with your concerns. If you can't say it to our faces, should you be saying it at all? What kind of courage regarding your convictions do you have? The silence is deafening ...

We will continue as subscribers to the ST forum, precisely because this forum (like many others) has a long history of healthy debate and encouraging the best in others. This will not be the final word on this (or any other) subject via this Forum. Have a great day.

 

[Shane Adams]

About my upcoming talk at the National Severe Weather Workshop: I've been criticized already on the ST Forum on the basis of the TITLE of my talk, which was deliberately chosen to be provocative. No one as yet has any idea what I'm going to present, so all of this exchange is not based on what I'm presenting, but on what some of my detractors have speculated that I MIGHT be saying. This is an exceedingly weak basis on which to form an opinion about my presentation.

Chuck said it himself: "deliberately chosen to be provocative."

Provoking thought, which leads to assumption, which leads to opinion. A perfectly natural process, something advertising execs are masters at exploiting. Chuck did a fine of job this himself, though I don't understand why he seems to be looking down on those opinions, being they were formed in part by his own manipulating. Our basis is weak because we were given just enough to form a basis, but not enough to confirm anything...again, as Chuck himself confirmed, by design.

I certainly have no capability to silence my detractors, nor do I wish to silence them, but one would hope that ad hominem attacks at least would have a more substantive basis. Perhaps some among my detractors know something about their own personal level of responsibility during storm chases and have chosen to launch a preemptive attack?

I'd like to point out that, at the time of my posting regarding this matter, I didn't know who the speaker would be. It didn't matter to me. My opinion wasn't an attack, but merely an observation, regarding the topic of the lecture, not the lecturer.

 

[Jody Radzik]

this exchange is not based on what I'm presenting, but on what some of my detractors have speculated that I MIGHT be saying.

Chuck (and Tim,) I really don't know who from what around here. I'm just a guy interested in storm chasing who got an email advertising a conference with a provocatively-entitled presentation. I'm not a detractor, but a fairly ignorant bystander speculating about the statement seemingly made about storm chasing in the title, which caused me to wonder if chasing is threatened by the reckless among us.

I'm truly sorry to have thrown myself into the middle of this and I apologize to one and all for anything I've said deemed offensive in any way.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

IMO join and post yourself, or let it go in one ear and out the other.

 

[Craig Maire II]

What was the title of Chuck's talk? This is the first time I've heard about any of this?

 

[mikedeason]

IMO join and post yourself, or let it go in one ear and out the other.

Amen.

I saw nothing in Dr. Doswell's reply which personally offended me.

As a disclaimer, I don't belong to CDFG nor any other closed discussion group. And, with all due respect to Dr. Doswell and anyone else, everyone's opinions and assumptions are just that, opinions and assumptions. If they are uninformed and poorly constructed they amount to a hill of beans to me. When next spring rolls around and everyone is out pursuing supercells and tornadoes, are you gonna spend your time stewing over your resentment of someone else's opinions and comments?

Storm chasing is a widely diverse activity shared by many people across a broad spectrum. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinions, even Dr. Doswell. You may not like them (and I haven't always agreed with him either), but at the end of the day does it really matter in the grand scheme of things?

It's simple folks: just chase in a responsible and respectful matter and don't worry about what others think or say. I know this is gonna get some folks dander up, but if what Dr. Doswell said really offends you then maybe you should spend some time investigating why what he said bothers you so much instead of just having a knee-jerk reaction to it. If, when you do this, you feel certain his opinion is not aimed at you then, as H said, "let it go in one ear and out the other." If it still bothers you, then obviously he has touched a raw nerve and said something that might hit close to home.

For what it's worth. about 12 years ago I made some negative and ad hominem comments about Dr. Doswell in regards to a very similar subject in a USENET group which got back to him. He e-mailed me with a trite but balanced reply which made me realize, after some reflection, I did indeed go too far. And yes, I did apologize via e-mail and he replied back. I ended up corresponding with him a few more times over the next several years and found him to actually be cordial and accommodating to my questions and comments. After actually corresponding with him on a personal level, I developed a respect for him based on my correspondence and not over his public comments which, yes, can be provocative.

In science, provocation is what drives advancements. If it didn't, we'd still believe that tornadoes have 500 mph winds, follow rivers, are created and driven by electrical forces and that a shaman or witch doctor waving a stick can drive them away (which would not be good for storm chasing ) Provocative means, simply, to provoke thought. And, yes, criticism is necessary and encouraged. But it must be well thought and constructive criticism.

Some may take this personal, but I think some people have a problem with Dr. Doswell and others in the academic/research community because you set them on a pedestal and then contrive in your own mind that they have a messianic complex or something of the sort. News break! They are not gods and I believe even they would agree with that. They have their opinions and everyone else certainly has a right to respond to them, but in a civil and well thought out way. There's no reason to crucify them simply because you vehemently disagree with what they say. That's probably the reason that so many in the academic, research and operational fields of meteorology shun public forums. Even if you're thick skinned you can only take so much criticism before you just say to yourself, "It's not worth the effort." I honestly think that those of you who engage in this behavior have an inferiority complex which you cannot resolve. If anyone takes that personal, then again, maybe some introspection is in order.

How many of you remember WX-CHASE about 10, 11, 12 years ago? At that time it was the best, and almost only source of online communication for storm chasers besides e-mail. Doswell, Harold Brooks, Howie Goldstein, Bruce Haynie, Gilbert Sebenste, Gene Moore, Lon Curtis, Dan Satterfield, John McLaughlin and even David Hoadley were regular contributors to that group. And it was open to inclusion from anyone interested in storm chasing, even a stupid no-name chaser like me; all you had to do was subscribe. So why aren't they contributing to this forum? Think about it folks; even David Hoadley and Tim Marshall, the men who created and nurtured, respectively, the publication which gave this forum it's name, hardly, if ever, post anything here. There has to be a reason for that.

I believe this is just another case of SDS induced boredom, much in line with the perpetual light bar and elitism threads which inevitably pop up this time each year.

I've said all I'm going to say on this subject. Feel free to flame away or reply with ad hominem attacks. As I said in the first paragraph, uninformed opinions are irrelevant to me.

Regards,

Mike

P.S. I do want to add that this is not in response to the replies already made in this thread which so far have been civil and point out some valid rebuttals against Dr. Doswell's message.

 

[Tim Vasquez]

even David Hoadley and Tim Marshall, the men who created and nurtured, respectively, the publication which gave this forum it's name, hardly, if ever, post anything here.

Well in all fairness they don't post anywhere very much... David Hoadley to my knowledge is enjoying retirement and has never been the kind of person to spend a lot of time on the computer. Tim Marshall has been buried under a landslide of Ivan/Charlie/Katrina/etc survey work and has a busy travel schedule, though he does make time to post occasionally.

Tim

 

[Maggie Kahman]

Mikey Gribble

Mr. Doswell has made many statements about how the "yahoo" chasers should/would be weeded out by getting killed in some sort of short term evolution of storm chasers.

Chuck was the one that came out and decided to start criticizing another group of chasers and trivializing their deaths (making comments about them getting killed).

And this letter from him is about what? My thoughts exactly.

Shane Adams

Chuck said it himself: "deliberately chosen to be provocative."

Maybe he should have chosen a topic that wasnt so "thought provoking"

In short, It sounds like a case of "he made his bed, and now he has to sleep in it, but doesnt want to"

*This post is not being directed at anyone, it is simply my own opinions*

 

[J West]

I'm by no stretch a " hard core" chaser, and as such I don't "get around" like some of you do, but I've never seen a problem with anything I've seen from Chuck...in person or in print.

 

[Aaron Kennedy]

I'll bite.

Are you really that afraid that another chaser speeding might tarnish your reputation?

This past season already shows evidence that we have "renegade" law enforcement out there that love to make ANY chaser's life quite crappy. I doubt their negative opinion of chasers formed overnight... it was probably spurred by poor conduct to some extent. So yes, I think we should be concerned about how other chasers behave.

While I'm not concerned with people speeding 10+ on dry highways en route to the storm, you can't disagree with the notion that there has been an increasing number of moronic incidents out there. While I don't necessarily believe we have a higher percentage of "yahoos" than in past years, we do have a substantially larger number of chasers. If the percentage of yahoos remains constant, then their numbers have also increased.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

Ok, so the goal is improved behaviors in fellow chasers.

So then the question is ... which is the best method of achieving this goal?

A. Alienating the people with the negative behaviors through actions, speech, etc.

or

B. Learning what actually motivates people and bringing out the best in others.

 

[Jason Boggs]

This past season already shows evidence that we have "renegade" law enforcement out there that love to make ANY chaser's life quite crappy. I doubt their negative opinion of chasers formed overnight... it was probably spurred by poor conduct to some extent. So yes, I think we should be concerned about how other chasers behave.

While I'm not concerned with people speeding 10+ on dry highways en route to the storm, you can't disagree with the notion that there has been an increasing number of moronic incidents out there. While I don't necessarily believe we have a higher percentage of "yahoos" than in past years, we do have a substantially larger number of chasers. If the percentage of yahoos remains constant, then their numbers have also increased.

I can definitely say that chasers don't want to go through what I went through with that cop this past spring. I always said that I don't care what other chasers do, I'm just concerned with what I do.

I can absolutely retract from that statement now. It's definitely safe to say that other chasers that don't behave on the road make it hard for the rest of us. I will report irresponsible behavior if I see it. I expect the same to be done to me.