• naturalgasbad@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The article literally cites the report. The fact that people are too lazy to look it up before discarding the article is, frankly, disappointing. SCMP literally pulled public numbers from public reports and TOLD YOU EXACTLY WHERE THEY GOT THOSE NUMBERS.

      Nobody in these comments has tried to disprove any statement that the article contains, because they can’t.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        No one can read the article because of the paywall. And the link to that report isn’t in the two paragraphs they let me read.

        But by all means, go off.

        • naturalgasbad@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          archive.ph/(URL)

          SCMP has been very reliable in this article (as I demonstrated in my other comment, where I follow their sources and find numbers that match them plus/minus forex differences). In the future, I’ll be citing this as evidence of SCMP’s factual reporting.

          Edit: FWIW, I cited the relevant claim way up in the comment section, so you don’t even need to read the article to see it.