Appalling Example of “Storm Chaser” Behavior

Regarding this material:

[Site no longer online at prior link…detailed account of “storm chasers” having to be rescued from Katrina’s surge at taxpayer expense.]

Elke wants me to post her thoughts, which I wholeheartedly support:

———–
I’m am completely appalled. Forgive these strong words, but I am seriously angry about this.

I could NEVER EVER show my face in public, (much less put the facts on a website!) had I chased this storm and then got in so much trouble as to need rescuing. Think about it. They may very well have been NEEDLESSLY taking resources away from some poor soul who couldn’t afford to LEAVE and might, at the same time have been DROWNING in his attic. Not to mention the danger inherent in the rescue itself to rescue workers.

Meteorologists should know more, at least in their heads, about what might happen than anyone else. And yet, how can anyone imagine such horrors? I, for one, will never look at hurricanes in the same way again. Is it that much different for tornado victims? Perhaps not, except by scale.

ANY financial gain received from this storm should really be put straight back into relief efforts. I doubt it will, but I can hope.

I have to admit, also, I’m deeply glad that no close friends went chasing this storm. It’s just not cool. Not this one.

Elke

———–

Roger here. Thanks to Kevin for bringing that link to our attention.

How shameful and sad that the “extreme video” thrillseekers are bringing such disrepute and greed to my beloved hobby. This is a giant seeping lesion on the face of storm chasing. I am offended that my tax dollars went to “rescue” those — with meteorology educations, no less! — who so brazenly self-promote their egregious misjudgments as something exciting or noble, then worst of all, stand to reap financial gain from selling video of others’ suffering. Despicable.



Comments

2 Responses to “Appalling Example of “Storm Chaser” Behavior”

  1. Taylor Koetje on May 12th, 2007 5:28 pm

    For anyone to say that Reed should die because of his actions is ridiculous. It is dangerous, but it is his choice. Do you people ever stop to think that his work may help with the future of storm warning systems and protection for people that may be in the path of these storms? The more we learn we can learn the better educated everyone can be about storms. Just becaue [sic] something is dangerous, doesn’t mean it should be ignored. Also if you don’t like it, turn the channel or don’t read about it, we have freedom of speech and expression, Reed is a grown up and can do what he wants, and so can you people. If you don’t like it don’t watch it. I would never storm chase because I am too afraid, I think it is great that someone is willing to risk it to possibly help with everyones future. Keep up the good work and good luck Reed!

  2. David Fogel --And-- Meso Smackievelli on May 17th, 2007 9:50 pm

    Boring:

    I’m disappointed. You’re already going France on me? What, you didn’t think my keen Smackievellian eyes would be able to peer right through your embarrassingly trite save face routine? You tried the oft used ‘I don’t spend all my time on here’ escape, yet your response was delivered with such loyal expediency. Na, you don’t pass your day keeping tabs on this blog. And Need thinks he’s going to make worthwhile contributions to research. You’ve only known him a week, but surely you must already see how perfect you are for each other.

    So says Boring:

    “It’s not that I don’t have the first clue of how to respond, I just don’t want to. And, and, and I have to hit it anyway. Yeah, yeah that’s it–I’m halfway out the door. Goin’ over to hang out at the local hole. Cause I don’t waste time on blogs. I have a real man’s social life. So what if the place is called the Blue Oyster Club. What of it? The chaps I wear aren’t always buttless. And besides, me and my buddies get to watch Jim Rome over there on the big screen. Rome’s the man. He knows how to work the exclamation ‘Dammit, Jim, I’m a Vulcan!’ into a hackneyed and unfunny analysis of a limply-conceived social stratum. Ha. See, I got you, you damn dirty Smackievelli.”

    Let’s examine, in summary, how you did in response and what we’ve learned about you:

    – You admitted that you’re confused and are lost for how to return fire. Shocking.

    – You’re not trying to smack, yet that’s precisely what you again attempted to craft. And you still don’t even realize it. More confusion.

    – You don’t understand the simple distinction between pretentious and erratic, nor do you comprehend the necessity of choosing one voice and sticking to it. (Then again, I’m sure you don’t know the difference between an appositive and an antecedent, either. Nor why some prefer the ETA over the RUC. And especially why Ohio State always torpedoes Michigan’s season.)

    – The best reference-based humor you can muster revolves around some drip whose most memorable smack was the one a mediocre Rams quarterback bounced off his face.

    – You eat fried poultry with the skin still attached and really should don a bib when you do so.

    – You pray to God for brevity so, maybe, you can have roughly the same chance as a bleeding seal in a shark tank of straining out a worthy reciprocal take.

    Keep not trying to write smack while trying to write smack, Boring. And do better next time. You’re living up to the name I’ve given you far too compliantly.