When Does Scientific Quibbling Become Unethical Lying?

In the Science Background section of the The Friends of Science website, the authors go to extremes to argue that climate change is NOT occurring, and then they say this:

“Possible Explanations For Global Climate Change:

“If the burning of fossil fuels was not the cause of earlier changes in climate, what might the possibilities be?”

They then offer four “explanations” for who, only moments before, they were arguing was non-existent climate change: Two of those explanation (outdated theorizing about sunspot activity and polar ice caps) have been discredited; one of which seems in no way relevant in the current instance (orbital wobble) and the last of which is this:

“Ocean Currents: Currents are critical agents in the distribution of heat across the Earth's surface. Broecker and more recently, Gagosian of the Woods Hole Institute, have highlighted the possibility that a reorganization of the Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic might cause an abrupt cooling in North America and in Europe.”

Would it not have been relevant to mention that the Woods Hole Institute's research indicated that anthropogenic climate change was the cause of the “reorganization of the Gulf Stream.”? In choosing NOT to mention that fact, were the authors being careless or mendacious?

And is all this considered “friendly” to science?