[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.