I'm not anti-China. I'm just pro-clarity.

When someone says "China has absolutely not met the Paris accord goals" and you respond "New York times reported China is ahead of pledges", it creates the impression that you are correcting the former statement with a contradictory source. The source is not actually contradictory, however, because it explicitly affirms the original point.

They literally have a graph showing their paris accord goal as of now, where they as of now, and a 1.5c goal. They and India are ahead.

That is excellent. I'm very pleased to hear this. Perhaps you could share that graph next time instead?

EDIT: Content warning for the next reply in this comment chain: it contains a prank image featuring pig genitalia and feces. If you're on desktop, the image is hidden within a collapsed spoiler toggle that you can choose to expand if curious. If you're on mobile, please know that spoiler tags are not well supported in most apps yet, so this is your opportunity to stop scrolling if you happen to have issues with the described content.