It's not all of us! - or - Everybody does it!

Whenever anyone criticizes a religion these days, many liberals start calling such critics bigots or even racists (Does religion = race?  I think not!).  Recently a brouhaha on the Bill Maher show prompted one participant to add further "explanation" of his position (note:  Sam Harris linked this essay from his own blog page).  Bill Maher and Sam Harris were taking the position that islam itself bears responsibility for the violent behavior of some islamic adherents.  Ben Affleck and Nicholas Kristoff considered that position to be biased and even bigoted.

My friend, RJ Evans, recently put up this essay that describes the situation as he sees it:  if you're willing to believe in a supernatural deity, you can be convinced to commit atrocities.  I came to this realization several years ago about "moderate" believers:  it's likely that if religious fanatics assume control over a government, moderates will be forced to go along with those violent events, or be killed.  They'll be confronted with the inevitable challenge to choose a side, and most of them will cave under that sort of pressure.  Perhaps they're fearful for their lives (and those of their family and friends).  Perhaps they just can't give up their faith, no matter how evil are the deeds committed in its name.  Of course, some might resist a call for atrocities by the fanatics.  But history reveals that few will do so when religion and government become one and the same.

We critics of religion argue that this tendency is an inevitable consequence of belief in a supernatural deity.  Moderates say, "It's not all of us!  They're just a minority of crazies!"  That might well be the case at present, but in the past and perhaps again in the future, it could be the law of the land.  If you believe that can't happen, I can call that belief into question.  What prevents it from happening here and now, as it has in other times and places?  In some nations, it's already happening.  It's not the "holy" scriptures (the foundation of all religions) that will prevent it.  Those writings are the source of the fanaticism that could be inflicted on us all!  You can justify nearly anything with quotes from those "sacred" documents, which to my mind renders them useless in a rational discussion.  In all such scriptures,  the supernatural deity demands complete and total submission, and is willing to kill anyone who doesn't believe as s/he/it commands.  Believers are followers, not leaders!  For each such religion, then, their deity is the ultimate authority figure, and if you accept that ultimate authority as legitimate, you must be willing to do as commanded.  It's inherent in all religions with a super-everything deity.  You can pick and choose those parts of the documents you like with your modern, moderate morality, and ignore the parts that make you uncomfortable, but the religion you cling to is precisely the source for evil deeds done in its name.  Everyone who commits such deeds also believe they, and they alone, know the true religion of their choice.

"But that's not the true ____ (choose your favorite religion)!  My religion is one of peace.  And love."  So your interpretation of your religion is the only true one, then?  What a coincidence that it's your religion that's the true one!  Isn't that the reason for the evolution of religions into many, many different subspecies?  "It's only we who are the true believers!  The rest are abominations, heretics, fanatics!"  Can you not see where such a belief leads?  Anyone who convinces themselves that they, and only they, are the sole possessors of absolute truth is likely to be a willing soldier on behalf of that truth.  When their faith is tested by the fanatics, will they be ready to sign up, or will they refuse, possibly at the cost of their lives?  History suggests the answer.

"But everybody does it!"  By a curious bit of irony, some moderates also argue that both sides of a religious divide have done evil.  They're using the fact that all religions have at one time/place or another,  been in control and committed awful deeds.  Followers of each religious denomination like to think of themselves as being persecuted - typically by some other religion, but any form of unbelief (including atheism, naturally) will serve their needs.   Some claim that religious persecution by atheist regimes is identical to that of theocracies.   I maintain there are important differences, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this blog.  Religious persecution can be, and has been, cited as justification for violent actions at some point.  No matter the reality of a situation, if someone perceives themselves to be victims of persecution, it becomes easy to rationalize violent responses.  The fact that one side has committed atrocities is no justification for the other side to do likewise - especially if that other side makes the claim they are adhering to a doctrine of peace and love.  Violence always results in more violence, not peace and harmonious co-existence.

Today's moderates evidently are blind to the dangers invariably associated with an absolute authority figure they must follow that wields a sword in defense of absolute truth and seeks to convert all others to the one true religion.  The potential for evil deeds flows from such a source in a fearful torrent, whether or not the moderates actually are participating at the moment.  If they see any criticism of religion as bigotry or racism, they're being misled by a modern sense of morality that doesn't arise from "sacred" religious documents but is, rather, a humanist morality.  A morality not imposed by some mythical supernatural all-everything authority figure who commands obedience on pain of death and rewards the faithful, but rather is based on our sense of shared humanity and empathy for others.

Criticism of religion is not equivalent to bigotry or racism.  It's absurd to equate religion with race, for one thing.  Race is a myth, for another, and modern religions generally accept believers of any "racial" character.  And it's not bigotry to criticize religion - religion is an idea, not a person.  A dangerous idea that needs to remain separated from government.

Update:

Just read an essay by Reza Aslan that seems to take a rather elitist stance when it comes to criticizing religion:  apparently, Aslan thinks that only dedicated religious scholars are qualified even to discuss religion.  He says that "Sam Harris, to me, gives atheism a bad name because he comes from a tradition of atheism that is really disconnected from the titans of intellectual, philosophical atheism who gave birth to the modern world. These were experts in religion who, from a position of expertise, criticized religion. Sam Harris is a neuroscientist; he knows as much about religion as I do about neuroscience."

So being a neuroscientist is a strike against his point of view?  This seems rather a self-serving interpretation of religious criticism.  Aslan is a religious scholar, so his views automatically trump those of anyone not a religious scholar?

We critics of religion may not have studied ancient scriptures in their original language or delved into ancient history, but neither have most of the followers of those religions.  In fact, many of the followers have never even read those documents!  There are passages in those scriptures that promote barbaric behavior of all sorts, and those passages are cited frequently to support that behavior.  Yes, we non-religious scholar atheists echo the "fundamentalists" (in part) because at least the fundamentalists take a mostly consistent position regarding those scriptures.  They don't cry "out of context" every time someone cites a scriptural passage that seems to contradict the myth of a peaceful, loving religion - rather, they embrace it, word for word. 

I'm most definitely not in favor of prejudice against islam - I dislike all religions that follow an absolute, all-powerful deity, for reasons I've given in this blog. It just happens that islam is the current world "poster child" for evil deeds done in the name of religion.

Losing the "war" against terrorism - latest installment

A story broke the day before yesterday that a woman in Moore, OK was stabbed and beheaded by a man who had just been fired from his job.  This man happened to be a fan of radical islam, so suddenly this nutcase becomes part of the ISIS/ISIL conspiracy to inflict islam and sharia law on the US.  Watch out folks, the terrorist sleeper cells are spreading through Mexico and penetrating everywhere.  We're all in mortal danger of being beheaded!!  Everyone who immigrated from the Middle East is a jihadist ready to inflict islam on us all!!

Get a grip, people.  This is simply fear-mongering to keep the expensive and unnecessary "war on terror" going - it's very profitable for the weapons manufacturers, the military, the police, etc.  Many politicians love to beat the war drums and portray themselves as strong proponents of the very American rights they've been so instrumental in taking away, all in the name of "protecting" us.  The simple fact is that the number of people in the US who have died as a direct result of terrorist acts since 11 September 2001 is quite small.  The odds of being killed by a terrorist are now considerably less than being killed by a tornado, for example.  More of our troops have died in wars on foreign soil than were killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center (both of them), to say nothing of the physical and mental wounds inflicted on those troops not killed in those wars.

Terrorism is a clear indicator of the military weakness and cultural isolation of the islamic terrorists.  If they had the remotest chance of inflicting their religion by a direct military confrontation, history suggests they would do so.  After all, that's what the christians tried to do during the crusades.  Nowadays, no group in their right minds would succeed in a set piece confrontation with the firepower of the US military.  Therefore, the terrorists have torn a page from the US tactics in the Revolutionary War (and used by the Vietnamese communists in the US's Vietnam War).  They hit and run, always so as to create maximum horror, and use that fear to intimidate their enemies into massive military expenditures (which are simply a black hole for precious resources:  they produce only destruction when used, and are a complete waste when not used), and disruption of their societies by massive, mostly useless "security" measures that destroy the very freedoms we claim separate us from them (the terrorists).

Terrorism will never be defeated by direct military action and attempts to kill off the terrorists.  Never!  Violence only begets more violence.  The way to suppress terrorism is to make it irrelevant.  To pay little attention to it.  The screaming headlines terrorism generates are among the many goals of the terrorist actions - they spread the paranoia at no cost to the perpetrators, and attract the sort of bizarre folks who are only able to derive a sense of self importance through the pain they inflict on others.  By perpetuating fear, we serve the ends of the terrorists, not ourselves.  When we give up our rights for the illusion of security (e.g., "security theater" at airports), we serve the ends of the terrorists.  When ordinary citizens cringe in fear at every headline and see terrorists everywhere, we serve the ends of the terrorists.  When we elect chickenhawk politicians who portray themselves as "strong" against terrorism, and send our troops to fight and die in pointless foreign wars, we serve the ends of the terrorists.

No American should give in to the irrational terror of the jihadists (or other terrorists).  Resist the urge for vengeance and go on about your lives without unfounded fear.  See terrorism for what it really is:  a direct admission of weakness.  That's the way to become a "soldier" in the "war" against terrorism.  This does not imply a capitulation to the terrorists and there are times when direct action against terrorists is both warranted and effective.  If we learn of a terrorist cell, take it down.  If a terrorist is running amok in a mall (or whatever), shoot him like a mad dog!  Protect and serve.  But spreading fear and breeding suspicion are not the answer, nor are invasions of foreign territory with the sole purpose being to eliminate terrorists.  These are inevitably counter-productive, as recent history has demonstrated so clearly. 

Death by cop ... increasing or not?

I readily admit that I'm having trouble grasping the significance, if any, of the recent spate of events where police have beaten or killed people who seemed not to represent a direct and obvious threat to the officers.  Of course, I can't say I know for sure the precise circumstances in those situations.  What seems to be the industry standard is to put the officer(s) involved on paid administrative leave, pending an internal investigation - with the preponderance of the investigations resulting in exoneration of those officer(s).  Not always, but most of the time.

Police are granted special powers over the rest of us, in order that they may carry out their duties to "serve and protect" the people in their jurisdiction.  They literally can become judge, jury, and executioner if they deem the situation to require that response.  The job they do is difficult and very dangerous - officers lose their lives in the line of duty all too often.  The assumption we make is that most of those we select to wield this power are going to be reluctant to exercise that extreme power, reserving it only for those situations that place them (and others) in serious, imminent, and obvious danger.  Officers may have only very limited time to consider their course of action in a given situation and it's reasonable that mistakes (fatal ones!) can be made.  As with any particular grouping of people, there will be some who are willing to abuse this power granted to them.  Again, we assume that the selection process should weed out most of those who would disgrace the trust placed in them, and that if someone reveals such a trait, they would be removed from that duty.  An officer who makes too many mistakes in judgment under pressure is not worthy of the responsibility.

Recently, it seems the frequency of such abuse is increasing - or is it?  Has the frequency of police abuse of power actually been increasing, or is it just being exaggerated by social media?  I wish I knew, but law enforcement agencies seem reluctant to make public any information about the frequency of officer-involved killings and beatings.  See here, here, and here, to offer just a few examples of this apparent universal wish to keep secret the information by which we might be able to ascertain any trends in death (and abuse) by cops.

I can't claim the sites I've cited are completely objective - I would posit that absolute, total objectivity doesn't exist in anyone, actually, so it's absurd to use that as a means of dismissing such concerns.  I know all the arguments by police apologists and am willing to grant that in some cases, those arguments have some merit.   But in many cases, those arguments seem pretty thin to me.  Why be so secretive if there's nothing to hide?  If it was a mistake, surely they would want to admit that, right?  Well, no, we humans often are reluctant to own our errors.  And our jobs may depend on not coming clean!

Yesterday, Jon Stewart made a key point in his rant about the Ferguson police shooting of an unarmed black man:  can we not hold our police officers to a higher standard than that of a street gang?  Ignoring all of the divisive discussion about widespread racial profiling by police (which I deem to be an undeniable fact), the simple reality of many of these police shootings is that even the suspicion of a minor crime on the part of the victim is being used to justify the immediate use of deadly force (or massive beatings).  Is it not reasonable to expect that police officers might risk their own lives to avoid the needless taking of another's life?  Isn't that what we should expect from those charged with the awesome life and death responsibility to serve and protect us!

As events unfold on the media, we often hear the officer's version of the story as being forced to shoot (or beat) in self-defense, when citizen videos may contradict the officer's version.  Not always, of course - some citizen videos confirm what the officer said after the fact, but if that's the norm, then why are police reluctant to wear body cameras, and when they do wear them, why not disclose the video to the public in every case?  The fact they prefer to maintain secrecy seems indicative of a cover-up.  What's the point of wearing a body camera if the footage is kept purely internal?

My question to the police is a simple one:  if the main objective of the legal system you're sworn to uphold is justice for all, then why is exoneration of police officers your main concern in these events?  Shouldn't you be seeking to have external investigations in such cases, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest associated with your internal investigations?  Are you not remorseful over the taking of another human's life?  Or has your typical experience with much less than the best side of humanity resulted in dehumanizing others, to the point where you no longer care about whether they live or die?

We need a system for independent investigations, with full access to all the information available, including body cameras, dashboard cameras, etc.  Yes, bad apples exist and they disgrace the many officers who do their duty honorably (and at great personal risk).  Should we not be concerned to find those bad apples and remove them from the ranks of those entrusted with such a huge responsibility?

Addiction, Depression, Suicide - Thoughts on the Suicide of Robin Williams

The untimely death of Robin Williams has forced many of us to ponder some nasty realities.  Amidst the numerous tributes and expressions of condolence (as well as the ugly political opportunism by some right-wing folks, including some typically thoughtless and cynical remarks by Rush Limbaugh), there have been some posts that actually offer some worthwhile things to ponder.  They have stimulated this blog.

Addiction to various substances (alcohol, addictive drugs) and behaviors (gambling) is an awful thing to experience when it happens to close friends and family.  If you haven't experienced this first hand, it's likely very difficult to understand.  A friend of mine said his experiences with his family member left him feeling completely powerless to know what to say or do that would cause the addicted person to get off the self-destructive path they're on.  Unfortunately, it's not up to us to change their behavior - it's in their hands.  They have to want to get over their dependence on the behavior so badly, they'll do whatever it takes.  I dislike 12-step programs that say the victims are powerless in the face of their addiction.  That's ultimately self-defeating and in many cases is often just an excuse to push religion on addicts.  But by no means do I want to diminish the power of addiction.  If addicts can't break the grip of their behavior, it's not necessarily a sign of weakness - it's a sign of how powerful the grip of these addictions can be.  Solutions to the problem of addictions remain elusive. Why do people feel the need to escape from the world via their addictions?  I suppose the reasons are many and varied, but the typical result is that their behavior makes their self-esteem fall still farther in a nasty positive feedback loop that can end in total disaster and death.  Friends and family may only be able to look on in horror as this downward spiral unfolds.  In my circles, there are several such situations that have gone on and are still ongoing.  The friends and family members likely need support as much as the addict!

The war on drugs is just as ineffective and counterproductive as was prohibition of alcohol.  As I see it, you can't solve this problem at the supply end.  If you remove one supplier, there are dozens willing to take that place, because there's so much profit in it.  The path to a solution has to be at the demand end.  How can we keep people from abusing certain behaviors that in and of themselves are not necessarily destructive?  I wish I knew.  I wish someone knew.  Rather than waging war on the supply side, and jailing people for their addictions, we should be using our resources to do the research into the challenge of preventing people from self-destructive behaviors on the demand side.

Depression and addiction aren't always associated, but depression apparently often leads to the sort of need to escape reality that addicts seek.  Not all those who are depressed are addicts of one type or another, but their suffering is real and often in silence - until it's too late.  There are many causes for depression - it can be a fatal illness, sadly.  Those suffering from depression in its many forms, including bipolar disorders, desperately need support but may shun the very people who could help the most.  Frankly, it's depressing to consider depression!  But if we can't face the issue, and it's as widespread as it seems to be, then we won't ever find a solution and tragedy will continue.

And of course, depression often leads to suicide attempts.  I've known people who have committed suicide and those of us left behind struggle to understand why someone we know and love would cause us so much pain.  We ask "Why?" "What could I have done to prevent this?"  Suicide ends the pain for the person who kills him/herself, but the pain goes on and on for the friends and family, who often struggle with their guilt over what they could have or should have done to stop this tragedy.  Thus, suicide is a selfish act, but for the person seeking to end their own personal pain, it seems there as if there's no other way for them.  There's no point to casting blame on the person who committed the suicide, but it's easy to understand the agony and even anger on the part of those left behind.  I don't pretend to know why a popular and successful public figure commits suicide - it seems all too common.  Wealth and fame aren't always good things, I guess.  Some of those left behind become so depressed over the suicide of a beloved friend or family member, they also give in to their pain.  Again, I can't pretend to have any solutions, but suicide always is an occasion on which survivors are forced to reflect.

What's the meaning of a life?  I've written about that here and here, but I can't claim any particularly satisfying or deep insight.  I know that as I get older, every year I lose more friends and family.  What I'm left with is their legacy:  the things they accomplished during their lives, the humanity we shared, the joys and sorrows we experienced together.  I don't believe in some cosmic purpose for life, so I see the search for that to be futile and not worth the effort.  If there's any meaning to our lives, it's how we go about creating a meaning for us as individuals through our friends and family, our professional work, our charity, our giving back for the blessings we have, and so on.  If the suicide of Robin Williams is to have any positive outcome, it will be the people moved by it to give something back to humanity for the gift of their lives.  I'm convinced we help ourselves the most when we push our "selves" to the back burner and seek to use our abilities and learned skills for the benefit of as many as possible.

Still an idealist

The definition of an idealist is "a person who is guided more by ideals than by practical considerations."  Although guided by those ideals, I also try to remain aware of practical reality.  In particular, the latest installment of the never-ending conflict in the Middle East puts my ideals to the test.  Yes, that part of the world has been in violent dispute for thousands of years.  Radicals, goaded on by their leaders, employing their personal interpretations of religious faith, have used terrorism, genocide, and war to try to carry out their political ends.  I say "try" because it's pretty evident they've all failed to achieve a stable peace through violence.  It's widely accepted that it's a form of insanity to keep doing the same things over and over again and expect a different outcome.  I'm told by some that it's foolish to hope for the madness that permeates the region (and occasionally spills out on the rest of the world) to end one day, to hope that the warring sects eventually will come to realize the futility of their violence.  Well, my message here is that I just can't give up that hope, even though my understanding of this unreal "reality" is that there's no such hope in the near future.

Vengeance for wrongs committed is poor excuse for violence.  It can't bring back those killed in previous violence, and whatever "satisfaction" is served by murder in the name of vengeance is ephemeral.  Such hatred only serves to destroy the hater from the inside.  For believers, consider Leviticus 19:18 ... "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."  That message appears over and over in the bible.  And in the koran, a similar sentiment can be found "The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof."  Of course, in those same documents can be found very contradictory calls (or even demands) for violence against their enemies.   Apparently, in Abrahamic religions, vengeance is not entirely left in the hands of their deity - or at least the message in this regard is pretty mixed.

Ironically, the unceasing violence that dominates the Middle East is thoroughly covered with the cloak of "religions of peace".  Like politics, the mindset of religion is dominated by unthinking, unquestioning obedience.  Religion and politics often are bedfellows in the rape of humanity - not always, of course, but history says this is a common situation.  Sometimes politicians see religion for what it is:  a means of exercising control over people, and so some politicians seek the suppression of religion since it can be a competitor for that control.  But religions typically survive (or even thrive) under political suppression - believers often see themselves as being persecuted for their beliefs, even as believers persecute others for their different beliefs.  One need only to look at theocracies or nations dominated by one religion to see the fruits of such tribalism.

Nationalism and religion are simply tribalism made manifest.  Tribalism is the ultimate source of "us versus them" - it requires conformity (obedience, control), rewarding those who support the tribe and punishing those who don't.  Tribalism simultaneously can induce compassion (reserved for the tribe members) and encourage cruelty (toward members of other tribes).  Tribalism is buried deeply in our evolutionary heritage and so has become instinctive.  We find comfort in the security of surrounding ourselves with people of similar beliefs and are discomforted in the presence of those who differ from us.  It's the wellspring from which bigotry, hatred, and violence flow.  That sort of "thinking" likely was helpful to the survival of early humans and so is hard-wired in our brains.  But what was helpful in days of primitive human existence is not at all helpful today.  Seeking company only of like-minded people nowadays is seen by many as harmful and counter-productive:  being challenged by someone of a different mindset is seen by many as a good thing.  Interestingly, some of those mouthing such words are, in fact, wholly dismissive of opposing viewpoints.  This had led the US to a deeply divided society:  liberals in one tribe, conservatives in another, who pour invective on the "enemy" and their leaders.  Wake up, folks!  This is unproductive tribalism and, given free rein, it ultimately can lead us to violence.

Since I'm an idealist, I must maintain the hope we can overcome this.  There are some who proclaim the secular humanist viewpoint that it's unhealthy to surround ourselves with those of entirely like minds.  We can think things through and if we do so, it should be possible to suppress our tendency to yield to tribalism, to push back the anger and the bloodlust that tribalism generates to support our wish to impose vengeance on those who differ from us.  Our experience tells us that achieving vengeance only hardens the will of the "tribe" upon which we exact vengeance - it creates a never-ending "feud" that can only achieve more of the same.  It creates new recruits for our "enemies", ready to sacrifice themselves just to kill us.  Surely we can agree not to give in to primitive urges, choosing instead to embrace diversity.  Tribalism is no longer the path to human survival.  We must work together to solve our many challenges in the modern world, or we risk falling back to a much more brutal form of existence.

That very rare commodity-a manager who was a real leader: Ken Crawford

 I don't know the date of this photo, but Ken was a lifelong fan of the UT Longhorns.   Despite that character flaw, Ken Crawford was a great person!

I first met Ken Crawford when he was a forecaster in the Fort Worth, TX, Weather Forecast Office (WFO), thanks to my late friend and colleague, Al Moller.  Ken then moved to Slidell, LA, as a deputy station chief (Deputy Meteorologist-In-Charge); then he became MIC at the Oklahoma City (OKC) Office, and was still there as the MIC when the office moved to Norman (OUN).  Subsequently, he left the NWS and became a Professor of Meteorology at OU.  At the end of his career, he left the university to be involved with the Korea's national weather service.  I've made some short FB posts about this, but this blog gives me a chance to be somewhat more complete.  On 23 July 2014, yet another friend and colleague of mine - Dr. Ken Crawford - died.  It seems 2014's toll on my friends and family continues.

Although I met him many years earlier, it was when the OKC office moved to OUN (and I followed not long after, when Dr. Bob Maddox became NSSL's Director), that my interactions with Ken really developed significantly for me.  Bob and I talked many times about our professional relationship with the Norman WFO across the street from our building on OU's North Campus.  We agreed on what to do and so convinced Ken that it would be a good thing if a research meteorologist from NSSL had an office in the OUN WFO.  Ken embraced the idea from the start, of course.  I was duly ensconced in the OUN WFO and, although as a non-NWS employee I wasn't authorized to issue forecasts, I had daily interactions with the staff.  Not only could I get to know and observe the people who actually made the local forecasts, but I could observe the office dynamics.  Those were some wonderful years for me and perhaps I might tell that story someday, but not now.

What I saw in Ken as the station chief was something I'd never encountered from a manager before.  Let me illustrate that with an anecdote:  When I would talk with "outside" people about the great things happening at the OUN WFO, they'd typically say something like, "Well, Ken Crawford has assembled a team of superstars there.  What else did you expect?"  The thing was, the group of people at the OUN WFO was, at that time, the same team (except for two people who were induced to leave the office) he'd inherited from the previous MIC.  Under the previous MIC, the office had been pretty low on the respect bar and Ken had effectively transformed the staff, but used the same people!!

How did he accomplish this?  Ken always operated under the principle that he would not be successful as a manager if his staff was not successful in their endeavors.  He understood that the people working for him aren't identical robots - they're individuals with particular strengths and weaknesses, so the idea is to use their strengths to contribute to the success of the office and to encourage them to improve in areas where they're weak.  Everyone was made to feel like an important member of the team.  And so the office prospered, even as his staff prospered (including winning various awards and kudos for their performance).  Ken always was supportive of his staff and was willing to "buck the system" should the need arise to help his office be successful.  I'm pretty confident that most, if not all of them, would have followed Ken wherever he led them, because it was clear that he reciprocated that respect.  How rare that perspective seems to be!  What a shame it's so rare - but Ken showed me by his actions how a good manager of people needs to operate.

When I was working in that WFO office of mine, one day it dawned on me that the 35 or so NSSL mesonetwork sites were just rusting away in a warehouse, and that they might be installed as a permanent mesonet for the benefit of the WFO operations.  When I brought up my idea to Ken, he then told me of his dream for a statewide mesonet that would have at least one station is every Oklahoma county!!  I was floored, but quickly discarded my own paltry idea to get behind Ken's Mesonet project.  He honored me by inviting my participation in the Mesonet Advisory Committee, a story all on its own and a time when I was very excited about what we were creating:  the Oklahoma Mesonet.  Circumstances forced me to give up my participation, but I'm very proud of what we set into motion on its way to becoming a reality.

When Ken became a faculty member, I had the opportunity to be a member of some of his grad student advisory committees.  I wasn't surprised to see the same overriding concern Ken showed to help those under his supervision to become successful.   Ken was an excellent meteorologist, above all, and that showed in his teaching.  Complex topics made sense when Ken explained them!  And he sought to challenge students to improve in their weak areas, even as they used their strengths - a familiar theme, implemented in a new context.  The panoply of his successful graduates is powerful testimony to the acuity of his vision for what he should do to be successful himself.

His death leaves a hole in our weather community that can't ever be filled, to say nothing of the loss felt by his close friends and family.  Yet, those of us who mourn his passing are supported by the gratitude we feel for having been his friend and colleague, or family member.  Ken was a very, very special person, who leaves us the gift of his presence and the inheritance of his achievements.  It's selfish to dwell on our grief over his absence - he'd want us to move on, capitalizing on what we do well and seeking to improve on what we do poorly, as he showed so many of us how to do in so many ways.

Thoughts on the eve of the Fourth of July

As many of my readers may already know, I was drafted in August of 1969, after completing my first 9 semester hours of coursework toward my doctorate.  The occasion prompting the elimination of the student deferment for graduate students was the Vietnam war, and so while I was working as a student trainee for the summer in Kansas City, I received that fateful letter informing me I had to report for duty on such-and-so a date at the Chicago Induction Center.

As early as high school, it became clear to me that the Vietnam mess threatened to suck me in, and that threat had grown with time.  I would turn 24 years old that fall and had been reading about Vietnam and its history.  Even to a naive college student, it was obvious that our nation was headed toward the disaster that involvement in Vietnam would create for us.  The Vietnamese had a rich history of fighting against and repelling foreign invaders, and that was precisely what we were:  invaders.  I knew that the Vietnam war was a terribly bad choice for our nation, and our American freedoms were at no way at stake in Vietnam.

So, I struggled with the decision of what to do.  I had 3 options, basically:  (1) go to Vietnam, (2) go to Canada, or (3) go to jail.  The latter options both would have destroyed any chance I had for a career as I'd envisioned it.  So ... to serve my own ends, I reported for duty and the rest of that adventure followed its course.  For many years, I was ashamed of my inability to accept the consequences for resisting what I knew was wrong.  I still feel some of that shame, although time has shown me that my time in service had many positive aspects I didn't recognize during my enlistment.  For whatever reason, I still fulfilled my obligation to serve my country when called upon.  That's not something I'm ashamed of, at least by now.  As my father served before me, and my son has served (and still serves), so did I.  I feel no honor in my service, but I did serve.

I've never felt a lot of animosity for those who skated out of being in the military during the Vietnam era.  No, my animosity is toward those who supported that terrible war, even as they avoided any commitment of their own lives in that very conflict.  The chickenhawks.   Those unwilling to do what they said others should do.

To me it comes down to is this:  my country has not always been right to become involved in foreign wars.  In some cases - like WWII and the first Gulf War - that involvement was necessary.  This is not the case when it comes to our participation in the so-called "Iraqi Freedom" war and our continuation of the so-called "Enduring Freedom" war in Afghanistan.  The latter might have been justified early in its evolution, but nation-building in a foreign land with no democratic traditions is a terrible mistake.  Both of these bad decisions pushed through by chickenhawk politicians have proven to be nightmares in the same fashion as our war in Vietnam.  Hopeless messes with no logical "end game" - trying to build our brand of freedom in nations where foreign ideas are nearly universally loathed and foreign invaders resisted implacably and without limit on the means.  I honor those who stand by their principles and refuse to serve in such a war!  We support the principles of American freedom most meaningfully when we protest the wrongs our nation's government perpetrates.  When we decline to support those wrongs.  When we make sacrifices of conscience to draw attention to those wrongs.

I love the USA and the principles under which it was founded by those who declared our independence from English rule on 04 July 1776.  But my love of my nation is not of the "My country - right or wrong" variety.  I believe it's our obligation to challenge our government when it commits wrongful acts in our names.  Now, with my career in its final years, it's relatively easy for me to protest our involvement in pointless, unnecessary foreign incursions, with a huge cost to our nation - not just in the trillions spent on these debacles, but the cost to our young men and women, and the cost to the Iraqis and Afghanis we have killed.  Just like in Vietnam ...

It's the chickenhawks whom I most detest in all of this:  the rich and privileged who can use their circumstances, their wealth, and their influence to avoid serving in the wars they support and create.  They like to perpetuate the myth that our warfighters are there to preserve American freedom.  Bullshit!  Our young men and women are fighting for oil and corporate profits and political hegemony and ludicrous ideological notions, not American freedoms!  These are unworthy ends, incapable of justifying the tremendous costs inflicted by these ugly conflicts on foreign soil.  American blood (to say nothing of others) is being spilled without American freedoms being challenged by those "enemies" living in those lands.

Our founding fathers supported asymmetric warfare against the British to earn our independence.  We should be able to relate to those who seek self-determination through asymmetric warfare, even as we may disagree with their principles.  Surely we can understand people who resent having a foreign system imposed on them by powerful foreign invaders.  It's easy to feel empathy toward those who simply want to be left alone to follow whatever course they choose.  It's only when they choose to impose their course on others that we have any viable argument to oppose them - and military intervention is not our only alternative in opposition.   We in the USA can't claim the moral high ground when our history is laced with examples of unjustified interventions in the affairs of other nations.

I think the Fourth of July represents a good time to reflect on what we are doing and why we're doing it.  Let us mull over what is truly at stake, here and now.

A logical dilemma for a scientist

It's widely accepted that the Internet is awash with nonsense, as well as vast amounts of good information.  All sorts of wild notions are given "equal time" with other notions supported by genuinely knowledgeable people.  A thinking person understands that and behaves accordingly, not accepting any single source and seeking out information to get a balanced perspective.  Since the very beginning of my meteorological career, I've been dealing with "crackpots" on a regular basis.  First by mail, then by email, and now via social media.  There's a fuzzy boundary between truly innovative thinking and outright nonsense, and I've been dealing with "outsiders" (i.e., those who are not severe storm meteorologists) for decades.  I have files of interactions with crackpots.  An extremely high percentage of the "ideas" from outsiders are pure nonsense, despite the very rare instances when an outsider actually brings something worthwhile to the forefront (e.g., Alfred Wegner - the meteorologist who first proposed "continental drift" - known now as plate tectonics).  For every such example, there are hundreds of claims that are pure bullshit.

A recent example is the physicist who wants to erect walls to prevent the "clash of air masses" that purportedly "causes" tornadoes.  Recently, he even had to gall to respond to his meteorologist critics by asserting that their physics education was too weak to grasp his brilliant ideas!  This, from a physicist without any meteorological background!

Another recent example is found here, where the person clearly doesn't understand the physics of atmospheric gases.  He questions fundamental physical laws but provides no meaningful basis for his lack of belief in them.  There's no basis for his wild claims about the relative densities of moist versus dry air, inter alia.  Thinking "outside the box" is one thing - making counterscientific claims with no substantial evidence is quite another.

The issue that confronts us is this:  by responding to these nonsensical ideas, are we not affording them more respect than they deserve?  Are we not prolonging the "debate" with the authors of these unscientific notions when we attempt to refute them?  Would it not be better simply to ignore this blizzard of balderdash?

Well, for one thing, the public media, including, but not limited to,  social media on the Internet - in their technical ignorance - often don't allow these sleeping dogs to lie.  Crazy ideas like the "tornado wall" are news!!  The media bring them up over and over, incessantly bombarding their readers with questions for which they (i.e., the media) are too ignorant to answer.  By leaving the questions hanging, the media lend credence to unscientific notions.  Even when they provide quotes from actual practical scientists disputing crackpot hypotheses (not theories! - in science, the word theory has a much different meaning than in colloquial speaking), I suspect many readers are left thinking the crackpots have some legitimacy.  Scientific ideas are not settled by debate ... they're either validated by the logic and evidence, or they're not.

Thus, the public is bombarded with crackpot notions like chemtrails and the HAARP conspiracy.  The decline of respect for science in this nation, combined with abysmally bad science education (where creationism is taught as legitimate science by some public schools dominated by ignorant christians), is fueled by the barrage of outright bullshit from the media.  If we don't respond in some way to this flood from the cesspool of scientific ignorance, we run the risk of seeming to advocate it with our silence.

In my experience, there seems to be no way to get across any sort of nuanced notion by appearing on the regular (non-Internet) media, such as TV or radio.  Hence, I have a general policy of not doing interviews for the media - with rare exceptions.  My few pitiful sound bites and abbreviated presentations of nuanced notions inevitably are overwhelmed in the crushing cascade of crapola.   I always come away from such experiences feeling frustrated with how little I'm allowed to say.  There's a constant push to get away from typical scientific thinking, where "shades of gray" are the norm and ideas are presented with many caveats to prevent misunderstanding - toward the black and white world of dumbed-down short sound bites.

Science, as it really is practiced, requires deep, nuanced understanding.  Some scientists may be notably effective at presenting scientific ideas to the public (e.g., Carl Sagan or Neil deGrasse Tyson), and so are given more time to present those ideas.  Most of us are hampered by the fact that in order to understand the subtleties, one must have some background in science.   If we keep it short to fit the apparent assumed short attention spans of media "consumers", we run the risk of leaving something important out - either for brevity per se, or because we were rushed and forgot to add it to our presentations.

So should we respond ... or not ... to the crackpots?  Is it worthwhile to seek opportunities to make presentations to the media?  Insofar as the media control the content, I say "No!"  But here on the Internet, the medium remains open to all.  The crackpots and the scientists are given equal opportunity.  I say we scientists should take every opportunity to discredit the crackpots here on the Internet.  We can take as much time as we want, and seek to provide evidence and logic to support our attempts to discredit the wild claims of the crackpots.

A look at the 'photojournalism' argument

So I've been seeing lots of arguments to justify photographing of a little girl who subsequently died from injuries in a tornado, and marketing of that photo.  Virtually all of them have called attention to other famous shocking images shot by photojournalists and published widely - an RVN army officer executing a Vietcong prisoner, or the firefighter holding a child he'd recovered from the rubble of the OKC bombing [who later died], and so on.

In general, photojournalists believe they have an obligation to record the truth of what they see, without regard to how others might feel about their photographs.  To me at least, this is especially so when the truth about a situation is not well-known (starving children in some far-off national civil war, for instance), or even being suppressed (as in many goings-on in Vietnam and other wars).  Heartbreaking images of victims of some sort of illegal or horrific activity convey the real-world consequences of those poorly-known or nefarious situations.  They can galvanize efforts to pull back either the shroud of cover-up or the shroud of ignorance.  I get that, and support it wholeheartedly.  I think if put in the sort of situation where unreported or unethical activity was going in front of me, I'd attempt to record for all to see what is not known.  I wouldn't deliberately seek out such a situation - I leave that for those who have the stomach for it.

But where is the widespread ignorance of the fatal consequences often associated with violent tornadoes?  What government agency is flooding the media with claims that tornadoes do no harm to anyone?  Yes, a photojournalist might be compelled to take such an image and it might be within the boundaries of photojournalism's ethics, but is that image needed to right some wrong, or to reveal something heretofore unknown?  What useful purpose was served by publishing that image?  A photojournalist made some money.  A public medium presented it as "news".   Anything else?

From a purely technical viewpoint, shooting and marketing the image is likely not illegal in any way.  Nevertheless, how does seeing the image make you feel?  Did you previously think tornadoes killed people in nice, neat ways?  Were you unaware of the threat from tornadoes?  Were you misled about tornado hazards by someone or some agency?  I'm pretty confident most people don't want to think about what tornadoes do to humans, so perhaps there's at least some reason to reveal the true horror of it.  Facing its reality might induce some positive action.  But as a viewer of the image, does it make you feel it was the right thing to photograph and publish?  I'll leave that to my readers.

After the 03 May 1999 tornado in the OKC area, my wife, who worked in the Norman hospital ER that night, told me about the horrible things she had seen coming in to the ER.  I had absolutely no wish for her to have recorded images of that agony for me to look at.  I'm pretty confident no one in an ER would allow such a thing!  After the Jarrell, TX tornado, I was told that the death toll had been difficult to determine after the event, in part because many of the victims had been cut to pieces by the tornado, making it very challenging to know to whom the scattered bodyparts belonged.  Again, I have no wish for anyone to share images of those grisly reminders of the violence of tornadoes. 

It's repugnant for me even to think about seeking out and finding horrific injuries inflicted on tornado victims, to say nothing of photographing them and selling the photographs.  I leave the seeking part to the trained and experienced first responders, who surely must go through some awful experiences in dealing with tornado victims on the scene.  I salute them for their courage and devotion to help people in awful circumstances.  I don't want to be within the damage path after a tornado.  If I'm nearby, my policy is to leave search and rescue to the professionals, and stay out of their way.

One thing that happens virtually all the time is when bodies are recovered in a fatality situation, they're covered up as soon as possible, until they can be taken to a morgue.  Why?  Surely it's out of respect for the dead and their families.  Would it be respectful to uncover them just so a photojournalist could record that carnage and perhaps win a Pulitzer prize?  I definitely think not, and I'm confident most (if not all) first responders would feel the same way.  If any photographs were taken before the bodies were covered, it would be for identification purposes, not for a photojournalist to record. 

In fact, in the case of the little girl in Nebraska, it's my understanding that first responders on the scene did ask the "photojournalist" to stop photographing the victims, but he refused to stop.  He's been backpedaling like mad to make himself out to be some sort of saint.  This is a troubled young man and his credentials as a photojournalist are pretty thin, it seems to me, although I don't know enough to be sure.  I actually find his story to be a pretty sad one, based on what I have heard second-hand, so I don't want to demonize him, despite my concerns over what he did before and after the event.  What I find especially disturbing now are the rationalizations I hear about the duties of photojournalists.  I ask again:  what would you do, given the situation of being there right after the tornado?  Would you take the shot?  Would you feel right about being paid for its use?

In my case, no ... and no.  Opinions vary, as usual.

The passing of Alan R. Moller

One of my favorite photos of Al, with me in the Fort Worth office of the NWS, showing the Pampa, TX tornado of 08 June 1995, one of our best chases together -- photo by Sam Barricklow
 
Today, I woke up to the awful news of the death of my long-time chase partner, friend, and colleague, Alan R. Moller.  He finally succumbed to early-onset Alzheimer's, taken from us years before his body finally died by that cruel affliction.  Seeing his razor-sharp mind and amazing memory stolen from him slowly was difficult to endure:  among his last words to me were:  "Do I know you?"  When I told him we'd been friends for more than 40 years, he said "That's amazing."  I realized then that the man I knew was gone, and the end of his body was inevitable.  I just couldn't endure seeing him that way again.  It was too much for me to take.  My deepest gratitude to his DFW-area friends:  Sam Barricklow, Carson Eads, Tim Marshall, Ed Cohen, and others.  They visited him and helped to brighten his days as the end drew near.

Fortunately, I have the memories of that long-enduring friendship, beginning in 1972, to cherish.  The Al Moller I knew was a wonderfully complex person, with an inquisitive, deeply-probing mind, a high-powered thinker on many topics, a person who willingly gave of his time and resources to anyone and everyone who needed them, something of a volatile temper, a wry sense of humor, often impatient but very devoted to his passions: forecasting, storm chasing, drag racing, western art, blues music, photography, and so on.   Fortunately, I got the benefit from the extended time spent with him during our chase expeditions.  I treasure that time, now. It's how I want to remember him.

When it came to his passions, Al could be very outspoken.  This was something of a problem for his efforts to climb the career ladder, but he never, ever sacrificed his principles in order to avoid ruffling bureaucratic feathers.  He didn't suffer incompetence or stupidity very willingly.  He stayed an idealist all his life.

Anyone lucky enough to have attended one of his public presentations was in for a real treat.  At the end of the formal scientific presentation, he would often put on a "bonus" slide show of his favorite images.  Not just storms, but photographs of wildflowers, mountain scenery, fall foliage, ... any outdoor landscape he might encounter on his journeys.  With each new image on the screen, there would be a moment of stunned silence, followed by a collective sharp intake of breath - the actual definition of what it means to be "breathtaking".  His slide shows were famous, and more than worthy of that involuntary reaction.  And it wasn't a case of Al bragging about his great photographs, either - he simply wanted to share the beauty he saw with others.  No, those slide shows weren't showing off, but passing on the marvelous moments he'd been able to capture.  Chasing with Al made me a much better photographer, as a by-product, but he was always the master.

When we chased together, it wasn't uncommon for us to get into loud, vigorous arguments - shouting matches, more or less.  These never even came close to becoming a cause for us to give up our friendship.  We both were stubborn, opinionated people, but with a deep mutual respect for each other.  I appreciated that Al wouldn't hesitate to catch me up if he thought I'd said something stupid or incorrect.  These arguments never detracted from the fun we had chasing together - chasing with Al was something I looked forward to during the time of our chasing partnership.  Eventually, the time came to end that part of our relationship, but it's something I enjoyed tremendously while it endured!

Al also had a passion for public service, as well as for forecasting and severe storms.  This he discussed with me during our chases together.  He was profoundly committed to that, doing spotter training talks all over north TX and elsewhere - the best spotter training anyone could have asked for, dispensed with his unique style and panache.  It was from him that I learned that a good forecast/warning wasn't the end of the story.  There was much that had to happen after a weather forecast product left the forecast office, and Al was unshakably determined to do whatever he could to make those things happen.  Al cared about people ... all people ... and did whatever it took to help them, if they needed something.

I'm proud to have known Al - he helped me, too, in many ways. His passing leaves a hole that can never be filled, but he gave us all so much - a legacy any man would be proud of, at the end.  His contributions go far beyond those he touched personally - people who never knew Al, but have benefited from his huge legacy without knowing from whom the benefit originated.

Me! Me!! ME!!!

According to Wikipedia, the "Me Generation" is the so-called Baby Boomers - my generation.  Of late, it seems to me that our current 20-somethings are strong competitors for that label.  As a weather geek, I'm probably not the most knowledgeable about such things, but it sure seems to me that storm chasing is being flooded with a large infusion of folks out there chasing who are, as my friend Gene Moore says, mostly about themselves and not so much about the storms.  "Look at me!" they shout.  "I'm special because I chase storms [stupidly!]."  They seem to care little or nothing about the feelings of storm victims as they cheer a tornado touchdown in their videos.  They thumb their noses at the very notion of chasers being responsible to others.  They wallow in their uncaring "outlaw" status, joyful as a pig in a mud puddle when they get publicity for their "exploits". "We can do whatever we want to and you can't do anything about it!"  And that part's true - I can't.

The dominant theme seems to be to get your video on TV (and/or to post it on Facebook) to show the "adventure" of being caught in a tornado, even when the video is pretty clear evidence in some cases that they're not in the tornado.  They often like to claim they're out chasing in order to save lives - which is pretty evidently ludicrous.  No, for these egomaniacs, it's all about shouting themselves into fame and fortune, pushing their foolishness onto our TVs and computer screens so that they become renowned - if not famous, then infamous for their foolishness.

In the wake of the tornadoes in Nebraska on yesterday, we have an image spread far and wide by a self-proclaimed photojournalist that purports to show the body of a little girl on a gurney shortly before she died from her injuries.  The photojournalist seems quite defensive about some of the reactions to his marketing of this image and, in my view, he has cause to be defensive.  I acknowledge that photos may show an unpleasant or even offensive image of a situation, and a photojournalist surely has the job to record those images and to show the rest of us the truth of the situation.  I get that.  But profiting from this image just seems wrong to me.  The event his image records is not about the photojournalist and his reaction to the situation, upon which he seems primarily focused.  It's about the little girl, her family, and the town's struggle to cope with a disaster.  In my opinion, his proceeds from selling that image should be donated to disaster relief, or to the family of the little girl.  He advises others to send relief to the town - should he not do likewise (preferably without fanfare or the cameras rolling as he does it) when he is profiting from their misfortune?  Does his success as a photojournalist make him immune to the immorality of personal gain at another's expense?

Also, an arrogant private sector weather forecaster has taken the same opportunity to promote himself and his services, heaping scorn on the forecasts and warnings by the National Weather Service (NWS).  Private sector forecasters have a proclivity for this, especially when they actually appear on the air, promoting themselves rather than focusing on their statutory obligation to disseminate weather information.  Disrespecting forecast competition isn't limited to other private sector forecasters - they often spread their net of scorn to include the NWS, whose ability to respond is basically zero, regardless of the truth or falsehood of such criticism.  No, the private sector is blatantly self-promotional, and is evidently willing to use every situation to promote themselves and disparage their "competition".  They are the quintessential proponents of themselves.  Rarely do they subject their own products to rigorous verification, and even more infrequently do they publish their verification statistics for all to see.  "I'm great! Take my word for it!" they proclaim.  A few are exceptions to this typical behavior - more power to them.  But self-serving promotion of themselves is rampant and unethical, in my view.  The American Meteorological Society should be much more aggressive in pursuing ethical violations by its members, it seems to me.

Self-promotion seems pervasive in today's world.  It's surely not limited to my generation.  And it seems to be increasing, at least as it relates to severe weather.  It surely can be argued that this blog could be interpreted as a form of self-promotion, but I think rather than seeking fame and fortune, I'm putting my thoughts out as catalyst for discussion - not lining my pockets with cash or attempting to gain fame as a consequence.

More on "extreme" storm chasing

Recent tornado situations once again have produced incidents where chasers have found themselves in danger from tornadoes, and narrowly escaped serious injuries or death.  Then, to compound the irresponsibility of such actions, they post their "I'm in the tornado!" videos as a digital badge of their "courage".  And they license such videos, hoping to get them aired - for a price, of course.

I've talked about this at some length before, and expressed my concerns.  But a recent Facebook post accused those critical of "extreme" chasers as being "haters", encouraging the posters of extreme videos to keep up their actions in the face of any criticism.  Chasers unwilling to risk themselves by getting close to tornadoes are called "sissies" or worse.  The particular subset of chasers represented by such extreme attitudes has been with us for quite a while.  They rightly say we have no power to stop them from what they choose to do.  I expect to change no one's mind with this blog.

The loss of the Twistex chase team on 31 May last year in the El Reno tornado has sent a message to all chasers:  even seasoned veterans trying to be as safe and responsible as possible (while trying to carry out an inherently dangerous mission) can make a mistake in certain situations.  The El Reno HP supercell storm produced a large, "wedge" tornado, moving somewhat erratically, wrapped in rain.  By getting in close to the mesocyclone where situation awareness became difficult, many chasers were putting themselves in danger and several had some narrow escapes, in addition to those who did not manage to escape.  Many of us came away from that experience with the new (and old) lessons for safety becoming increasingly relevant to us in our chasing decisions.  Many of us learned several lessons from the tragic outcome of 31 May 2013 - but of course, the "extreme" crowd has already demonstrated this year they have learned little or nothing from the loss of their friends and chasing colleagues.  Some of those lessons were already known from the now decades-long history of storm chasing, some came from that terrible day.  That some chasers would ignore these lessons was, unfortunately, a predictable response from that group of extreme chasers who consistently thumb their noses in defiance at anyone critical of their behavior, sneering contemptuously at those whom they label as "haters", and referring to them as "sissies" for not indulging in dangerous behavior of the sort they crave.

I have no problem with someone selling their stills and video from storm chasing.  I've been doing it for a long time, and it's helped pay for the costs of storm chasing - but the tally sheet at the end of most years tells me I just about break even with my sales.  That's fine by me - I continue to think of storm chasing as a hobby, not a profession, so I do it for the fun and excitement of being able to witness the awesome spectacle of severe storms.  I shoot stills and video to capture the moments during a chase and - to sell if I can.  I don't chase "competitively" with anyone and I'm never jealous of someone else's success.  All I care about when it comes to the extreme chasers is that when they broadcast their near-death experiences and contempt for responsible behavior, they do two things that concern me:

1. They glorify doing dangerous things that could result in their fatalities and those who chase with whom they chase.  This confirms the bias the media have in regarding storm chasers as crazy.  It reinforces an image of chasing that's not appropriate for most of us.  In effect, it's promoting an inappropriate stereotype applied to all of us.
2. They encourage others to emulate their behavior, perhaps in hopes of achieving fame and fortune as a chaser, or perhaps just for the adrenaline.  Real fame and fortune, of course, is just an illusion for all but a very tiny fraction of chasers who have marketed themselves as "extreme", only a few of whom actually know what they're doing well enough to become rich and famous for their exploits.

If someone has video of a near-fatal encounter, the most valuable thing they could do with that is to use that footage to present and discuss what mistakes they made in getting into that situation, in order to help other chasers not to make the same mistakes.  Several experienced chasers have done just that - admitting they made a mistake, accepting the responsibility for it, and then sharing that information in a way that helps other chasers.  This is something extreme chasers never do, whereas many experienced, responsible chasers have already done so.  Sadly, extreme chasers don't seem to want to use their errors to help others - it's all about them, not even remotely about the storms.  Their actions speak so loudly, I can't hear the words they're saying.

Thoughts on an event 15 years ago

Today marks the 15th anniversary of the tornado outbreak that began on the afternoon of 03 May 1999.  That day, I was "head down" into my research at my NSSL office, not planning on chasing, because I always had much to do professionally before I went on my annual chase vacation.  As the afternoon wore on, word filtered up from the SPC below (in the old NSSL building on North Campus) that the outlook had been upgraded to "high risk".  Then, toward the end of my workday, about to leave for home, I drifted down to the research/operational workstation room that was next door to the SPC operations area.  In checking out the developing storms, it seemed that the storms beginning to our southwest were left-movers and didn't pose much of a threat - but I thought "Well, it's going to be in my backyard, so I might as well go out and take a look-see."  I hadn't brought my cameras, so I had to go home to fetch them.  By the time I got home, a quick look at the TV showed a tornado in progress on live feed!  I barreled out the door and got into the chase recounted here.

But I don't want to reminisce about that chase, per se, in today's blog post.  Rather I want to consider the account (in that link above) of my damage surveys and how I feel about things today, with the passage of 15 years.  I remember a talk I gave somewhere about storms and storm chasing - during the Q&A following the talk, someone asked me if I'd ever seen an F-5 tornado, and I'd responded, "No, the strongest tornadoes I've ever seen were only F-4s."  I recall being mildly amused by the question, but also a bit offended by the implications.  That question also reminds me of the scene in that awful movie Twister where the hero Bill Harding (played by Bill Paxton) is held in awe because he's the only one in their merry band who's actually seen an F-5.  Somehow, it seemed my status as a chaser, as seen by others, was diminished because I'd not seen an F-5 tornado.  Like an F-5 tornado was the chasing equivalent of a 12-point buck mounted on my wall.

After the incredible day's chase on 03 May 1999, I was pretty sure I'd seen my first F-5 tornado and that carried with it some sense of fulfillment - until the BPAT survey began, and I had another chance to see for myself, with my own senses, what tornadoes can do.  I'd participated in other surveys before, included that done for the storied 24 May 1973 tornado that hit Union City, OK.  That tornado had initiated some concern within me (see item #32, here) for the morality of storm chasing (see my previous blog) and I eventually resolved that concern when I remembered that my desire to see a tornado had absolutely no effect on the atmosphere.  I was not responsible for the devastation of tornadoes, so my conscience was clear.

I hope my overall feeling of horror comes through in my personal account of the BPAT survey.  In the days following the event, I felt a growing anger over the superficial and sensationalized media treatment of the 03 May 1999 outbreak.  In retrospect, my real take-away from the survey was the realization that no one who had not experienced a devastating tornado could even begin to understand the feelings of the survivors.  That feeling has been reinforced by a project reviewing the 1925 Tri-State tornado - it was clear by interviewing the survivors that the impact of their experiences still was felt strongly nearly more than 70 years later!  As obvious as that seems to me now, it was something of a revelation then.  With the passage of 15 years, that theme has come more and more to the forefront of my feelings about storms. 

I haven't lost my fascination with tornadoes and the storms that produce them.  I haven't lost the desire to go out and see them for myself.  But as time passes and more events accumulate in the record books of tornadoes, it's become much more difficult than it used to be to detach myself from the tragedies they produce and stay focused on the science and the storm chasing experience.  I understand why some people can view storm chasing as immoral or hostile activity, although I maintain that it's neither of those.  When I think about the storms of 03 May 1999, it's no longer only in terms of the excitement of that chase.  I now feel more strongly than ever that we professionals need to put more effort behind programs that can mitigate the awful consequences of a tornado in a populated area:  improve our forecasts, support the imposition of more substantial building construction and the spread of suitable tornado shelters, and so on. 

Rather than feeling a sort of wistful echo of my experiences as a chaser on 03 May 1999, I'm now reminded of the terrible feelings I had during the BPAT survey, talking with survivors and seeing first hand what this phenomenon can do to humans.  How can I feel excited recalling a successful chase on that day when I think about what that storm did to the people in its path?  It's taken me several decades of storm chasing to reach this point, so I certainly can understand some of the enthusiasm for the experience that relatively new chasers feel.  I just hope they can begin to develop more empathy for the survivors and not let their excitement dominate that empathy. 

Is storm chasing inherently an immoral behavior?

Since the deaths of storm chasers during the El Reno tornado of 31 May 2013, there's been a growing concern expressed on social media about the ethical basis for storm chasing.  I can understand those concerns and have expressed my own concerns on this blog several times, and in my web essays.

The question is, then, is chasing inherently immoral?  I wrote a lengthy essay a while back on chasing safety (see the "web essays" link above).  It's been updated several times as new issues have come to light.  There's another excellent blog by Barb Mayes Boustead on the post-El Reno tragedy that reflects what I think responsible chasers feel about this topic.  But some have the belief that even the concept of chaser responsibility is meaningless, because it's chasers who decide for themselves what responsibility means to them!  Thus, in this view, chaser responsibility has no meaning because it's a relative morality.  This has some similarity to the religious arguments about relative versus absolute morality.

Who besides chasers should decide what chase behavior is responsible?  There are no wholly objective chaser morality boards, and even if such did exist, any regulations they might impose are essentially unenforceable.  In the absence of a set of god-given chasing responsibility commands, I think most chasers have a pretty clear idea of what is responsible and what isn't - I tried to articulate this in my essay on the topic.  Part of the problem is that some chasers choose to flaunt their irresponsibility for all to see - a red badge of testimony to their extreme disdain for responsibility. They think of me (and other critics) as a self-righteous prude and thumb their noses at my concerns - these are storm chasing's "yahoos".  And of course some chasers have different opinions about this or that component of my safety essay.  The fact that such disagreement exists doesn't mean that it's not possible to define chaser responsibility in a meaningful way.  I suspect if a survey of chasers were to be done, the resulting consensus wouldn't be too different from what I've listed in my essay.   There might be circumstances where something mitigates the apparent irresponsibility of some act I've deemed to be of concern in that essay.  Not all nighttime chasing is irresponsible, for instance.

Some believe that by being on the roads, chasers are threatening the safety and efficacy of first responders and ordinary citizens - blocking the roads at a time when those roads are needed the most.  This is most serious whenever major chaser convergences arise, of course.  It's not so relevant for solo chasers.  Often, of late, locals on "joyride" chases in their vicinity or fleeing their homes can combine with numerous chasers to create long lines of vehicles, effectively blocking the roads, so this is not an unfounded concern.  I readily admit that massive chaser convergences can be a big problem, and I avoid them whenever possible.

I also believe that when chasers become casualties, they're adding to the burden imposed on first responders.  Resources needed to rescue an irresponsible chaser who got in close and paid the price are not available to the real victims of a devastating storm.  Responsible chasers avoid such situations. 

Another thing that I believe concerns critics of chasing in the post-El Reno era is the sensationalization of chasing and the celebrations of chasers over their successes, even as people's lives are devastated.  In fact, I've written about that here.  I share the concerns of critics about chasers showing their joy in videos.  At the very least, I recommend the audio portion of their glee be suppressed when their videos become public.  I understand the excitement of a successful chase, but chasers should be mindful that tornadoes can result in tragedy, and be respectful of those who have been unfortunate in having their lives destroyed by tornadoes.  Showing your excitement on videos shared in public media is simply not being responsible!

In the same way that the atmosphere doesn't obey my wishes, so that I bear no real responsibility for what tornadoes do, it seems that chasers are under no obligation to obey my "rules" about being responsible.  Widespread glamorization of chasers via the media has produced massive chaser convergences and brought in many new irresponsible chasers over the years.  I know of no way to stop the process and I have no authority to do so.

But is chasing inherently hostile/immoral?  Not when done by responsible chasers, some of whom have made contributions to the science of storms that have led to important new understanding that can be applied to the warning and forecasting of tornadoes.  Some have played roles in storm spotter training that undoubtedly have saved lives.  Chasing cannot inherently be hostile.  It becomes immoral only when the actions of irresponsible chasers lead, directly or indirectly, to harm to our society.

Let me illustrate this with an example:  many have seen the infamous "Turnpike" video from the 26 April 1991 event in Kansas.  That video showed people sheltering under an overpass as a tornado supposedly went right over them - their survival was implicitly advocating the use of overpasses as shelters.  The TV news team members were storm chasing, not accidentally caught and seeking to escape the danger, and their award-winning (!) video led to 3 fatalities under overpasses in the 03 May 1999 event in Oklahoma, as some of us had predicted eventually would happen.  No doubt the news team was unaware of the consequences of their video.  But it had unfortunate consequences, nonetheless, that were predictable.

How many people already have died in tornadoes with video cameras or cell phone cameras in their hands?  No one knows.  There may be many more of these about which we have little or no information - it may have happened in Tuscaloosa on 27 April 2011, two years before the El Reno chaser deaths.  Is this another unintended consequence of chasing?  Probably so - especially the sensationalization of tornado chasing that has become so pervasive in the media.   The competition to get the wildest, near-death experience recorded and broadcast has begun and clearly will result in more chaser fatalities.  And, likely, more irresponsible chasers.

I agree with the storm chasing's critics about how chasing is getting out of hand.  And there are aspects of chasing that I disavow.  But in the end, I chase storms because I'm fascinated by them.  I never did so to gain fame or fortune, but rather for the love of the natural world in all its awesome power and majesty.  I've tried to use my chasing experience to give something back to society in exchange for the opportunities I've been given to pursue a lifelong fascination.  I don't think that's being irresponsible or immoral.  I can't speak for others ...

Thoughts on Easter

Today, Easter Sunday, the social media are full of posts proclaiming the resurrection of christ jesus.  This outpouring of rapturous excitement over a mythical event nearly 2000 years ago provides justification for this blog post of mine.  They're entitled to believe whatever they wish, and are free to proclaim those beliefs however they choose, at least here in the USA.  So am I.  Hence, this is an occasion for me to discuss a particular aspect of this belief system.

I've already posted a web essay that provides an extended position statement, so I won't repeat all that here.  Keep in mind, the goal of my essays and blogs isn't to "de-convert" anyone from their beliefs (everyone has been "converted" to their religion - most often by their parents - no one ever was born with a particular religious belief), but rather to suggest that faith-based religions are irrational.  Every rational person knows there's no way to provide absolute proof of the existence of the abrahamic deity often referred to as "god".  Why is that?  If the putative deity exists, I'm told by believers, it chooses to avoid giving any tangible evidence of its existence (although it was quite willing to do so 2000 years ago, for some reason!), so that nowadays believers must accept it purely on faith (i.e., belief without evidence).  Evidence would apparently make it too easy!  Why is that?  Why should this deity work so hard to make it difficult to believe in it?

Every rational person also knows there's no way to provide absolute proof of the non-existence of said deity.  This is often a response from believers when their belief in a deity is challenged, who usually go on to commit the logical fallacy of claiming that the inability to disprove something constitutes proof of that something.  What we're really talking about is evidence, or more properly, its non-existence.  The evidence I see is basically consistent with the non-existence of a deity.  The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, not someone who disbelieves the claim, especially in the absence of compelling evidence for the claim.  If someone were to provide convincing evidence, I'd be willing to change my mind.  Would believers do the same?  In many cases, it seems, they assert vigorously they would not!  I have another web essay on this topic, so I'm going to leave it at that, here.

What I really want to comment on this Easter Sunday is my continuing struggle with how otherwise intelligent and rational people are willing to embrace irrationality.  I'm not talking about fundamentalists who interpret scriptures literally and accept those scriptures as literal truth.  Fundamentalists must somehow rationalize that the literal words of scripture are contradictory, full of logical and historical errors, and sanction all sorts of behavior we would consider immoral.  I'm not going to dwell on this here.

Most christians in the US have interpreted many parts of the bible as metaphor, parables, songs, etc., and rationalized biblical words in various ways (e.g, 'Just how long was a "day" in the Genesis story of creation?'), no doubt at least in part because it's pretty clear that science contradicts those literal words, with a lot of evidence to back up the scientific understanding.  Believers have labored hard to find a way to accept 'magical thinking' even though they know magic is not real.  Unlike religion, science makes no claims to complete understanding, but what understanding it has developed since the Renaissance is solidly rooted in evidence - evidence that scientific understanding works in the real world, not just within the confines of a collection of writings from barely-civilized late Bronze Age tribal members of 2000+ years ago.  Is there a conflict between science and religion?  You bet there is!

The challenge that a rational believer must resolve is that clash between rational and irrational - you either develop your opinions and beliefs based on logic and evidence to the maximum extent possible, or you accept belief in the absence of evidence (faith).  Religious belief creates a cognitive dissonance with reason and evidence - a clash that must be resolved.  Many rational christian believers apparently solve this challenge by compartmentalization:  science and rationality hold sway in many (if not most) elements of their life, whereas in the religious compartment, faith and irrationality dominate.

Why would people do this?  I'm not qualified to provide an evidence-based answer, but I can at least speculate, so long as I admit I have no evidence.  Thus, I suspect otherwise rational people cling to their religious beliefs so desperately for many reasons:

• Fear of death and the promise of eternal life.  
• Threat of eternal punishment for unbelievers.  
• Hope for a reunion with those who have died before them.  
• Solace and comfort provided by a myth being used to control them.  
• Social support from their religious 'tribe'.
• Inertia of beliefs developed in childhood.
• A way to explain tragic events in their lives. 

It's a willing suspension of disbelief in one compartment of their lives.  When I hear from an intelligent believer that nothing could ever cause them to waver in their belief, that's prima facie evidence of a closed mind on that subject.  I'm reminded of when some people are being told something they don't want to hear, they stick their fingers in their ears and go "La-La-La-La ... " to avoid hearing those words.  They're afraid to have their beliefs challenged.  They're afraid to admit their security blanket might have no rational basis, and so might be unable to provide security, save that of the placebo.

Can We Prevent the Coming Tornado Disaster?

Recently, a photo taken from a AA baseball game shows a storm that is pretty close to the field and the players are still out on the grass in the open:

Some might think that's a tornado, but it's not ... it's an example of a so-called "shelf cloud" associated with storm outflow winds.  The primary danger to the players and fans in this photo isn't from a tornado but from strong winds and lightning.  A proper venue plan to mitigate those dangers would involve input from a meteorologist to provide a warning with enough lead time to protect the players and fans.  Such a warning could not offer absolute certainty, of course, and the venue operator may not wish to shut down the game, thereby losing profits, unless it's virtually certain that such action is needed.  Hence, the reason players are still on the field may be this profit-driven reluctance.

Note:  in baseball, I think it's the formal responsibility of the umpires to delay or call the game for safety reasons.  The referee has that authority in football.  Nevertheless, the venue operator no doubt bears some responsibility here.  There has been some improvement in sports venues to reduce the lightning threat, but this photo seems to suggest there's still a ways to go. 

Many of us meteorologists are concerned about the potential disastrous impact of storms on large venue activities:  ball games, amusement parks, concerts, and so on.  It's inevitable that a really bad storm will hit one of these events and cause mass casualties.  There are numerous examples of near-misses by significant tornadoes, for instance.  There's no reason to believe that good fortune will continue forever.  Rather, it's inevitable that a large venue event will be hit by a strong tornado.  It's frightening even to contemplate such a disaster.  Despite the efforts by some of us to heighten the awareness of this danger, the response has been less than overwhelming, as this image suggests.  What are the reasons for this reluctance to act on the potential for a disaster?

I've already mentioned the profit motive.  Cancelling an event hurts profits, and after all, the primary reason for an event is to make money.  It's my understanding that if such a catastrophe could reasonably be anticipated, it's the legal responsibility of the venue operator to have a mitigation plan and implement it.  Can this reasonably be anticipated?  I think I just did and I like to believe I'm being reasonable!

Venue operators must weigh the loss of profits against the potential losses through legal action after a disaster occurred for which the venue was unprepared.  I detect a bias in their responses toward ignoring the threat of those lawsuits in preference to those short-term profits.  And providing some sort of storm shelter for patrons could be expensive and remain unused for a long time.  For some events, it's hard to imagine any practical way to provide shelter for everyone.

In my experience, most people (not just venue operators) have no wish to learn about the real risks that confront them.  There's a lot of good information produced by the National Weather Service (and other sources, like FEMA) that's specifically intended to inform non-meteorologists about the threat from thunderstorms and severe weather.  Thus, the information is available.  Why might people not wish to learn about risks to their lives and well-being, thereby being prepared to take appropriate action?  I'm not a social scientist, and we have much to learn about human behavior, but I can speculate.  For one thing, many people have experienced storms and survived without harm.  A common phrase heard after the impact of a really bad storm is "I've never seen anything like that!"  People tend to assume their experience is much more representative of reality than it actually is.  If, in their lifetime, they've never been hit by a tornado, then without thinking about it, they can fall into the "normality" bias ... it's normal not to be hit by a tornado, so it's easy to assume that will continue forever!  People choose to accept myths as truth because they want those myths to be truth.

Rare events are inherently dangerous, because that rarity fosters complacency.  Why take the time and resources ($$) to prepare when you most likely will never have need for such preparations?  Never mind that someone experiences such an event virtually every year.  "It's not possible for that to happen to me!  It only happens to others!"  And commonly, after someone is hit, they say "My sense of security has been destroyed"  That sense of security was an illusion, not reality.

Someday, and I can't tell where or when, a 'perfect storm' of factors will result in a bad storm hitting a large event venue and mass casualties will result.  Then, the lawsuits will fly, and fingers of blame will be pointed.  We could reduce the chances that it will be a disaster by proper mitigation plans and measures.  Can a coming disaster be averted with mitigation plans and preparation?  Yes, of course!  The question is, however, will that disaster be so averted?  The jury is still out ... sad to say, it may take a disaster to cause much movement toward mitigating the potential for more disasters.  We humans tend to learn lessons the hard way.