I think the problem here is that "climate friendly" is inherently a relative term. No amount of emissions is good to have, so you're comparing it to other emissions sources. If we leave out the biggest comparison point (no beef at all), we're missing the forest for the trees. We're just optimizing the status quo a little bit
If the argument in favor was "this can maybe reduce emissions a bit" while we look to work on reducing meat consumption and production levels, it'd be one thing. That's generally not what people touting this claim, however