For “normies” reading the headline this sounds like “China reducing air pollution is causing global warming”… But when you actually read the article, what you find, buried several paragraphs deep is:

It is important to note that China’s action hasn’t caused additional warming, Samset stresses. Rather, it has “unmasked” what was already there.

And:

Despite the impact on global temperatures, the action was worth taking to save lives […] research has suggested the measures have helped avoid 150,000 premature deaths per year.

So, actually, China did a very good thing. Why write such a negative headline then?

And why is it that in this entire article on the topic of climate change is there not a single mention of China’s colossal renewable energy efforts? No mention of the EV revolution that China is leading? No mention of the Great Green Wall? No mention of China’s breakthrough advances in nuclear energy? No mention of how China is the only major country on track to actually achieve its climate goals?

I’m not saying go on a huge tangent - by all means, stay on topic! - but the topic is climate change. It behooves you to at least mention some of the ways that China is actually combatting it.

I expect this sort of biased reporting and these sorts of language games from mainstream media, not from science publications. This is seriously disappointing…

China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment did not respond to a request for comment.

Yeah, cause at this point they can’t even be sure that you won’t twist their words to make China look bad!

And just to clarify, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with the science in this article, my issue is with the wording, with how it’s presented!