 |
| Responding to my letter of 11 August |
I’m not going to quibble with this. Though I just might get around to checking the references he makes to the IPCC.
There’s a different point here that I’ve made from time to time. That the South China Morning Post is the paper of record for opinion makers in Hong Kong and to some extent for Asia too. Here in Hong Kong I have examples over the years of the government keeping an eye on what’s said in these pages, both the Letters and the Op-ed sections. Here we have the government countering my claim that they had the typhoon protections wrong. IOW keeping an eye on views in the Letters. It’s at least one way they have of keeping a finger in the pulse. Kind of…
ADDED: I wonder, by the way, why they relied on the IPCC for the original article projections rather than using their own very detailed records which go back to the 19th century and surely provide a good basis for predictions (which is what I did). After all, they do a weather forecast every day. Why not their own typhoon forecast? What’s better about a “summary for policymakers” by a gaggle of people at the UN?
Also: Final sentence: “does not conflict” with my analysis? Not so sure about that.
