[cmendel]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, are you advocating for continuing to follow a blog that is known to give misinformation because you like the writing style? Because if that is the case I would highly recommend changing your mind, the Bayesian prior has changed and unfortunately it is permanent.

[cbsks]

Just because he gives misleading social commentary, doesn’t mean that his meteorological information is any less accurate.

[fanatic2pope]

How do you know his meteorological information is accurate?

[cbsks]

He is a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington, a fellow of the American Meteorological Society, and his resume [0] looks impressive to me. I realize that this is an appeal to authority, but since I don’t know enough about meteorology to make an informed decision about the specific information that he gives, his qualifications seem to indicate that he is a trustworthy source of meteorological information.

I did a quick internet search and looked him up on Wikipedia. His Wikipedia entry [1] mentions the controversies surrounding his non-professional views, but I didn’t find anything about his meteorological views being in question.

Please correct me if I missed something! It can be hard to determine if someone is trustworthy on the internet.

[0]: https://a.atmos.washington.edu/%7Ecliff/CliffsVitaeLatest090...

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Mass

[jackyinger]

The writing style is OK, but I’m really there for the weather, and that’s it.

Heck I don’t even entirely agree with his weather assessments.

[DaniloDias]

Rephrasing what someone wrote in an uncharitable way is a toxic form of communication that will limit your ability to experience diversity of perspective. It annoys everyone around you and will hurt you in the long run.

Instead of slapping malignant narratives on people, try asking explorative questions that invite the OP to clarify or make an ass of themselves.

[cmendel]

I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't follow the aforementioned blogger and don't live on the west coast. That said, your response is interesting, how is my query toxic? To be honest, I don't even think I'm being uncharitable; if a previously reliable information source starting being unreliable then I would expect folks to pay attention to notice that and cease to use it as a source.

Since you have an opinion on this, what sort of questions should I have asked the OP?

To be explicit; I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious.

[DaniloDias]

“are you advocating for continuing to follow a blog that is known to give misinformation because you like the writing style?”

If you look at op’s comment, there is no mention of style.

I also have no visibility into misinformation from the blogger. Not sure that OP does either.

With respect to his weather writing, he’s been around for quite a while and is perceived as authoritative. He had a radio show dedicated to the weather on NPR. This isn’t some rando with a blog.

Questions you should have asked: “how do you feel about this posting where he makes this claim that is clearly misinformation?”

You may be right about your above questions- but as an outsider looking at this thread, I don’t see why you believe the things you do and I don’t know why OP would ever agree to that phrasing. You assumed conflict rather than misunderstanding by asking ~“are you advocating reading misinformation because it’s well written?” Is a question that assumes someone knows your context.

Trying not to be adversarial here- just underlining where reasonable people would not be super thrilled with the questioning style.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I don't think it's reasonable to characterize political comparisons we find offensive as "misinformation". More generally, standards of intellectual engagement that require you to import political battles into every other topic are destructive and unhelpful.