Open letter from Chuck Doswell

[Mike Peregrine]

ok - excellent. We both agree that reckless chasing is terribly negative. I also feel strongly that it would have a negative impact on other chasers, and it would be bad for everyone. Dr. Doswell and many others promote this idea, and I'm not seeing anyone disagree with that here.

What I am seeing is people disagreeing with some of the methods used to establish and make that argument.

 

[Mikey Gribble]

OK, so we all agree that having a chaser get killed is a bad thing that we obviously don't want it to happen, so then why are there so many people that defend what Doswell advocates? Here is one of his quotes for the people that don't know what this is all about. I don't want to be accused of "putting words" in anybodys mouth, so like I said this is a quote from Doswell...

"I am a firm believer in Darwin. (Loud applause.) Some so-called storm chasers seem to have a death wish. I hope their wish comes true."

I don't really care that much about what he says, I just find it annoying that other people would applaud and tolerate that kind of mentality. It is indefenseible IMO. At best those kinds of comments are in extremely poor taste.

 

[David Wolfson]

I personally think the philosophy of social Darwinism as expressed is for the most part both morally repugnant and notably ineffective or perversely effective in practice. But that's a political and philosophical discussion which doesn't need to go on here or the CFDG.

Now where Dr. Doswell, Dr. Gray, and other atmospheric scientists may open themselves to discussion here IMHO is when they present debatable scientific opinions in a public context.

 

[scott r currens]

"I am a firm believer in Darwin. (Loud applause.) Some so-called storm chasers seem to have a death wish. I hope their wish comes true."

I don't really care that much about what he says, I just find it annoying that other people would applaud and tolerate that kind of mentality. It is indefenseible IMO. At best those kinds of comments are in extremely poor taste.

As I understand it, the offending quote was made after a series funny of slides showing chasers doing stupid or dangerous things. Personally I don't have a problem with the first half of the statement "I am a firm believer in Darwin." and the applause that followed it. I am sure I would have thought it was funny too. In my opinion the second part "Some so-called storm chasers seem to have a death wish. I hope their wish comes true." is over the top and in bad taste. That being said, it is essentially "If, then" statement that isn't the exactly the same as saying you want someone dead.

 

[Mikey Gribble]

I totally agree with you Scott. There is nothing wrong with the Darwin comment, but the second part was the mistake. If he would have just clarified and said he was joking then that's one thing, but I've heard his position clarified on it (along with a couple others) that stick to their statement. I'm not terribly offended because I know deep down that there is no pausible way that they would really want somebody to get seriously hurt. I'm am more offended by the whole looking down your nose mentality that those kinds of comments project. I am all for speaking out against jackasses that endanger other people, but I also believe there is nothing wrong with getting close to tornadoes for dramatic video and speeding under certain conditions. I'm really getting worn out on the whole thing. I'll chase my way, Chuck will chase his, and the yahoos will chase their way. Until some yahoo t-bones a school bus full of children and causes a public outcry, I'm not going to worry about it.

 

[Dave Gallaher]

I'm really getting worn out on the whole thing. I'll chase my way, Chuck will chase his, and the yahoos will chase their way.

Yes...

My biggest fear now is that yahoo chasing will take on a previously unheard of dimension and become "Yahoo Chasing." In other words, folks will begin to follow and document yahoos to the point of the subject having its own forum on ST, complete with a Y-rating system:


Y1 -- Tripod on road, inconvenient parking, gratuitous screaming and yelling to enhance video footage;

Y2 -- Distracted driving at low speeds, jamming behind vehicles like DOW or TIV; causing gratituous scenes at gas or food stops, ignoring traffic while standing in roadway;

Y3 -- Driving off-road without concern for public/private property, driving while entering data, legitimately offending local law enforcement;

Y4 -- Offensive driving, blocking another chaser's access to storm, driving at speeds above both legal limit and common sense factor, getting close enough to the vortex to endanger unwilling passengers;

Y5 -- Causing or having an incident that kills or maims or destroys property, either vehicular or storm-enabled.

 

[Gabe Garfield]

I'm am more offended by the whole looking down your nose mentality that those kinds of comments project. I am all for speaking out against jackasses that endanger other people, but I also believe there is nothing wrong with getting close to tornadoes for dramatic video and speeding under certain conditions.

Therein lies the rub. To some, those type of comments project an "elitist" mentality. At the same time, some chasers project an "I don't care about anyone but myself" mentality by not considering how their chasing affects others. Ironically, addressing the latter (without consideration or care for the chasers involved) defeats the motivation (i.e., consideration) that prompted the address in the first place.

The key here is caring. That is, we need to care about each other and the victims of the storms that we chase. Individualism and the accompanying "you do it your way, I'll do it mine" modus operandi work only to a point. We've all made mistakes, and we will all make some in the future. When we make big mistakes, we hope that someone will be kind enough to give us a break.

For instance: How many of you have ever risked going down a dirt road only to get stuck in the mud? It was your dumb choice, but thank goodness, some kind local had mercy on you and pulled you out. Did you deserve to be pulled out the mud? Absolutely not! Applying Darwinian concepts here, they should have just left you where you were. But they didn't. This is how we should treat each other.

Gabe

 

[Mike Peregrine]

The key here is caring. That is, we need to care about each other and the victims of the storms that we chase.

Love this point of view ... if we could find a way to get this vibe going instead of negativity, I'd be on board 100%.

 

[Shane Adams]

I think most chasers do care about storm victims and each other. There will always be a few bad apples or whatever, but for the majority I think chasers are decent folk. We all screw up out there. We all get selfish. We all do things we know we probably shouldn't, but we need that shot, or to pass that car, or to get through that town. Not huge things that put people in harm's way necessarily, but the little things, the stuff we throw at each other on here each Winter.

As for the "yahoo" blanket-tag thing, I have my own long-standing opinion of it: We ALL take turns being the yahoo out there. Every person who's chased has done something stupid, be it by pure absent-mindedness or quite on-purpose to get a shot, or get there faster, or get out of the car, or whatever. I've been to a crapload of chaser gatherings over the past decade and I can write a list of highly-respected names who I've personally heard recall past accounts of dumbassness, followed by a great laugh from all of us who were standing around. Little things.

But feel free to argue on if you wish

 

[Craig Maire II]

Stuff

I don't know about everyone on here but I paid alot of money on fuel expenses, hotels etc. this year and did alot of spotting for the National Weather Service (which they thanked me for) so I don't really care what anyone thinks as long as I don't endanger anyone's life or property while chasing, I feel no guilt for enjoying the storms I see but also hate to hear about people getting hurt etc.

 

[SteveCarter]

I think some of you missed my point with my first post. My point IS......Doswell says he would NEVER be a member of ST, yet he uses ST to state that, and to convey his opinion. This in MY opinion and would be like saying, "I would NEVER join the Republican Party, but would go to the Republican Party Convention, tell them that I would never be a Republican, and then tell them reasons WHY." Then I would be offended that I did not get get a standing ovation??? (insert Democrat or whatever)Fine, Doswell hope a few storm chasers get killed. That's HIS macabre opinion. Weird, strange, and disgusting...but he has that right to feel that way. What I DON'T get, is him using THIS forum to express ANY opinion, when he wouldn't be a member to start with! And yes...I don't care about ANYTHING he has to say, after the statement...."Some so-called storm chasers seem to have a death wish. I hope their wish comes true." I don't give a rats a** what he did earlier in his career. Maybe it's time for him to retire, and rest on his laurels, before he totally regresses to invisibility status. This is my last post on this subject.

 

[rdale]

I feel no guilt for enjoying the storms I see but also hate to hear about people getting hurt etc.

Did you mean to post in this thread? I'm not sure I get the connection... Dr Doswell has an issue with yahoo chasers that drive into the heart of the tornado to get the latest footage. If you're saying that's what you do, then I think you're on the wrong forum.

 

[Shane Adams]

I think some of you missed my point with my first post. My point IS......Doswell says he would NEVER be a member of ST, yet he uses ST to state that, and to convey his opinion. This in MY opinion and would be like saying, "I would NEVER join the Republican Party, but would go to the Republican Party Convention, tell them that I would never be a Republican, and then tell them reasons WHY." Then I would be offended that I did not get get a standing ovation??? (insert Democrat or whatever)Fine, Doswell hope a few storm chasers get killed. That's HIS macabre opinion. Weird, strange, and disgusting...but he has that right to feel that way. What I DON'T get, is him using THIS forum to express ANY opinion, when he wouldn't be a member to start with!

I agree with that opinion. If you want nothing to do with something, then have nothing to do with something.

 

[Mike Birbeck]

Right of reply

I believe that Dr. Doswell (let’s be courteous and gracious enough to state his title earned through his excellent academic record and his enormous contribution to the study of severe storms in particular) has a right of reply and if he feels (erroneously or not) that his name has been impugned in this forum then it’s in this forum that he should have that right (without needing to necessarily belong or want to belong to the said forum).

To state this principle simply, if I am defamed or misrepresented, or believe I have been so, through publicly accessible forums in ST (and let’s face it you don’t have to belong to ST to see some of the ad hominem attacks that time to time, unfortunately, punctuate some of the threads here), then I have the right to reply in that forum.

If we don’t believe that Dr Doswell has that right then we should not open any of the forums to the public and by dint of that contradiction should remove the word forum from this site.

Webster’s definition of forum - a public meeting place for open discussion.

You need not have to belong to state an opinion in a forum.

Come on guys (and gals), this is ST, a good source of intelligent opinion and thought, let’s keep our thinking crisp. We are democratic after all, aren’t we?

If we don’t agree with his opinion (whatever that may be) then we have the right of reply as well.

 

[Maggie Kahman]

I think you guys missed something.....

From Tim Vasquez: I am passing along the following email I received from Chuck.

I have to agree with Shane too, though.

From Shane Adams: I agree with that opinion. If you want nothing to do with something, then have nothing to do with something.