Honestly I didn't think it was necessary because if they were significant they would have been noted by the person who made the NYT connection. Unless that happened to be the only article he read, and he doesn't strike me a NYT fan.
As far as proving my point, I think it's up to people to research for themselves before accepting something as significant just because it gives them warm fuzzy feelings.
But if this helps anyone, here's a random sampling of article publish times
The NYT didn't even claim to break it in the provided snapshot, so it looks like it was an attempt to give more significance to the coincidence. I wouldn't trust that source anymore.
Honestly I didn't think it was necessary because if they were significant they would have been noted by the person who made the NYT connection. Unless that happened to be the only article he read, and he doesn't strike me a NYT fan.
As far as proving my point, I think it's up to people to research for themselves before accepting something as significant just because it gives them warm fuzzy feelings.
But if this helps anyone, here's a random sampling of article publish times
Politico - 12:08 PM EDT
WaPo - 1:42 p.m. EDT
CNN - 1:54 PM ET
Fox - 4:08pm EDT
NBC - 7:17 PM UTC
There's no sources. Strange that you would go through the trouble and not include the hyperlinks.
Stranger things have happened.
If you were hoping to "gotcha" me by showing that the NYT article "broke" the story as the truth/tweet indicated, then sorry to disappoint.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/02/gina-mccarthy-climate-adviser-00054677
The NYT didn't even claim to break it in the provided snapshot, so it looks like it was an attempt to give more significance to the coincidence. I wouldn't trust that source anymore.
Lol, I wasnt? 🤨
Was that meant as a question? I'll assume not.
It was a sneaking suspicion, and honestly would have been fair game to lead me to something I was overlooking. Thanks for clarifying.