When they identify "misinformation", are they first looking for things that support the wrong conclusion [...] or are they first looking at reasoning processes

What makes misinformation misinformation is that it's factually wrong, not that the reasoning processes underlying it are bad. (Not to deny the badness of bad reasoning, but it's a different failure mode.)

do they address any misinformation that would lead people to being misled into thinking global warming is more real/severe than it is?

They pick one single example of misinformation, which is the claim that there is no strong consensus among climate scientists about anthropogenic climate change.

If they don't and they're claiming to be about "misinformation" and that they're not pushing an agenda, then that's quite suspicious.

It would be quite suspicious if "global warming is real" and "global warming is not real" were two equally credible positions. As it happens, they aren't. Starting from the premise that global warming is real is no more unreasonable than starting from the premise that evolution is real, and not much more unreasonable than starting from the premise that the earth is not flat.

The fact that it is clear from reading this paper which is supposedly not about what they believe sorta does

I disagree. If you're going to do an experiment about how to handle disinformation, you need an example of disinformation. You can't say "X is an instance of disinformation" without making it clear that you believe not-X. Now, I suppose they could have identified denying that there's a strong consensus on global warming as disinformation while making a show of not saying whether they agree with that consensus or not, but personally I'd regard that more as a futile attempt at hiding their opinions than as creditable neutrality.

I [...] haven't given any indication of whether or not I buy into global warming

I think you have, actually. If there were a paper about how to help people not be deceived by dishonest creationist propaganda, and someone came along and said "do they address any misinformation that would lead people into being misled into thinking 6-day creation is less true than it is?" and the like, it would be a pretty good bet that that person was a creationist.

Now, of course I could be wrong. If so, then I fear you have been taken in by the rhetoric of the "skeptics"[1] who are very keen to portray the issue as one where it's reasonable to take either side, where taking for granted that global warming is real is proof of dishonesty or incompetence, etc. That's not the actual situation. At this point, denial of global warming is about as credible as creationism; it is not a thing scientific integrity means people should treat neutrally.

[1] There don't seem to be good concise neutral terms for the sides of that debate.