Your critique appears to mischaracterize both the article and how scientific communication works. The ICM-CSIC piece isn't "taking liberties". If you read the article you will find it is presenting direct quotes and interpretations from the actual researchers who conducted the study. When Antonio Turiel, a co-author of the PNAS paper, states "we're seeing that the SMOC is not just weakening, but has reversed," that's the research team's own assessment, not journalistic embellishment.
It sounds like you really want the article to not discuss anything beyond anything explicit stated in the paper. I find that an incredibly bizarre desire which strengthens my impression of your comment as bad-faith. Research papers focus on presenting specific findings and data, while institutional communications appropriately discuss broader implications and potential consequences. This isn't misleading, it's how scientific discourse functions, AS INTENDED!
The CO₂ implications you dismiss aren't pulled out the article's author's behind. They come from researchers who understand their data and its significance for carbon cycling. Scientists routinely discuss the wider ramifications of their findings beyond what fits in a technical paper's scope. This is good, not misleading or disinformation.
Labeling this "disinformation" is a smear of what appears to be legitimate scientific interpretation by the researchers themselves. There's a meaningful difference between debating the certainty or magnitude of predicted impacts and dismissing expert analysis as fabrication.