It's probably because of the use of ChatGPT without actually fact-checking anything it wrote.
Me: provide references.
> Schwartz, M. D., Ault, T. R., & Betancourt, J. L. (2013). Spring onset variations and trends in the continental USA: past and regional assessment using temperature-based indices. International Journal of Climatology, 33(12), 2917-2922.
Ault, T. R., Henebry, G. M., & De Beurs, K. M. (2015). False spring climatology in the contiguous United States. Environmental Research Letters, 10(4), 044022.
National Phenology Network. (2019). First Leaf and First Bloom Maps. Retrieved from https://www.usanpn.org/data/spring
Harrington, C. A., Gould, P. J., St. Clair, J. B., & Carlson, M. R. (2010). Modeling the effects of winter environment on dormancy release of Douglas-fir. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(3), 798-808.
Using ChaptGPT for research is interesting, and I think it's a cool way to learn new things. But I think if someone is going to share that information with someone else, it's appropriate to manually find and cite creditable sources, at least sufficiently enough that the ChatGPT aspect becomes irrelevant in a way other than discoverability.
At least the https://www.usanpn.org/usa-national-phenology-network exists!
Sounds like it's successfully approximating a human (I wish I was joking).
The current "state of the art" for human commenters who are acting in bad faith is to google their position and cite articles and papers that don't even support their claims knowing full well that people will have to waste time reading your BS sources to disprove you and that even if they do you've still one because you've got them to stop arguing against your position and instead argue against your sources. These miscreants are often successful in using their false appeals to authority to convert people to their side.
Of course ChatGPT doesn't know what "bad faith" is but regardless it's almost performing on their level.
We are marching toward a world where dishonest spinsters and BSers pretending to be experts are going to be replaced with bots.
What could go wrong?
Add that to the context of so many existential issues we need clear communication on (freedoms, the global economy, reformation of society, climate change, Putin and Jinping's last gasps for "legacy"). All the while dodging machine generated hallucinations of off-by-that-much pronouncements on the world around us.
We have a perfect storm brewing.
Its trained largely on the public internet. That it reproduces bad faith argument naturally and fluently should not be surprising.
It's just generating them based on learned patterns, nothing more
The person’s comments was suggesting a fluke event. No comments were given to have dialogue with the comment, which only downvoted.
If people wish to create a toxic environment for opposing view points, that is their choice. However, it is toxic none the less.
Not everything is associated with climate change or politics.