Given that most of the article is made of highlights from 10 scientific articles published in such high profile reviews as Nature, Science, or Nature Geoscience, I do not think you can reduce it to "political advocacy" from a "hysterical website".
Selecting high quality scientific articles to bolster my political argument doesn't stop my aim being political - it may just mean that I have a convincing argument!
It is fair to be wary, however, of the process of selection in situations like this - these were 10 articles selected from many. Why were they chosen? Was the process of choosing neutral (such as in an independent literature survey) or political in nature?
This is where the nature of the site may give reason to look more closely, especially where they top and tail the actual science with partisan name calling, such as the reference to people concerned with the transparency and reliability of the climate science processes (ie 'Climategate') as the "anti-science crowd".