A Misconception of Chasing: Science and Saving Lives

So recently I saw people getting their undies in a knot because I said that anybody who deludes themselves into thinking they're chasing for science or to save lives is full of it.This is a piggyback off of part of my last rant earlier in December. I thought it'd be prudent to get my point across before it turns uglier.

To start off, lets look at the whole "I chase to save lives" deal. I think this quote sums up the mentality of a good 95% of chasers. It comes from a piece by Tim Marshall on chasing pioneer Roger Jensen:

"I will never forget what Roger told me why he photographed storms all of his life: "Gosh, it's for the awe at what you are seeing. I was born loving storms."

That quotation basically sums it up. Like I said in the other post, storm chasing is a selfish pursuit. Spotters are there to "save lives"/report severe weather or something of the like. Chasers are a totally different breed. The goal is to observe convective weather, to photograph it or record it, to just have that experience. No chaser goes out looking to simply report tornadoes, hail, or damaging winds. They may help if they come across damage and many will report severe weather phenomena if they get the chance but its important to remember that it's not the primary objective of a chaser. I've never seen someone say "going out to save lives today". But then again, I don't know everyone in the community so its possible that some people do go out with the sole objective of saving lives (how they do that I'm not quite sure). If you set that as your goal, then more power to you, but this whole belief that chasing is turning sour or someone is doing it wrong  because they're not solely dedicated to saving people is pure BS. 

Now that the first part of the rant is over, lets delve into the second part: chasing for science. This motivation is almost as frequently used as the chasing to save lives version. A lot of the time, newer chasers will say they chase for science to make themselves seem more important or more impressive to the people around them. This may impress the general populace but its a fallacy. Mounting a little weather station on your car does not mean you're chasing for science. It would have to benefit the scientific community by making some new discovery and the likelihood of that happening is less than zero. Field studies such as VORTEX2 and ROTATE were chasing for science. They were gathering data that had actual use in solving some of the more baffling aspects of microscale events in supercells. Unless you're part of one of those government or university field studies, please, for the sake of all of us, stop using  "I chase for science". 

If my post has offended anyone, I apologize right now. Feel free to berate me in the comments section but I'm sticking to my opinion. I'm not necessarily saying I'm right but I think I've made a valid argument. If you're interested on reading more about Roger Jensen follow the link below:
http://www.stormtrack.org/jensen/

James