[given]

This website seems to omit or twist facts to make their articles as sensationalist as possible:

> Blanketed in acrid smog, Beijing is waking up to climate change

Ok, so if Beijing is having smog because they pollute the air this is now climate change?

Or just the next article linked on that page again:

> The smog is so bad in Beijing that someone made a brick out of it

Actually he used clay for most of the brick, he only collected 100 grams of "smog" during 100 days (4 hours of vacuuming each day) (see http://qz.com/562319/a-chinese-artist-vacuumed-up-beijings-s...)

I'm not saying they don't have a problem with smog but one thing I know is that this kind of journalism is not helping anyone. It is just like everywhere: we tend to get emotional about stuff which doesn't help us to find a solution. It just makes people dislike each other.

[zurn]

"Blanketed in acrid smog, Beijing is waking up to climate change" outside the article body is a link and headline to another article. In headlines this pattern is used to establish setting.

So the reporting does not suggest or imply that smog is climate change.