Tag Archive | weather research

Moral High Ground: the last bastion of pseudoscience



Chuck Doswell said…


I am allowing your comment to be posted, as it illustrates nicely what I’m talking about. However, any further attempts by you to post here will not be accepted. Additional discussion with you is not going to be worthwhile.

July 1, 2014 at 11:30 AM

via Blogger: Chuck’s Chatter – Post a Comment.

But what you are not seeing from this apostle of self-righteous indignation is the post I submitted prior to that:

So, Chuck, how do you think this boy’s father would feel if he was told that the convection assumptions of Meteorology’s storm theory had never been tested/measured?  (Follow link):



A Response to Chuck’s Strangely Vacuous Chatter


In response to the post that immediately precedes this post entitled “It’s Not What You Know That Will Hurt You . . . ,” Chuck Doswell, a semi-retired Meteorologists specializing in severe weather research, on his own blog Chuck’s Chatter, reacted as follows (follow link):

Chuck’s Chatter: A logical dilemma for a scientist.

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 Wegener – 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.

So, basically, Chuck’s message here is that we should stop asking questions and stop entertaining alternative explanations because he’s got it all figured out, and we aren’t smart enough (or educated enough) to understand any of it anyway.  And anybody that disagrees with what he refuses to explain is a “crackpot.”  (And this, folks, is the state of the art of Storm Theory and Tornadogenesis.)