Starting from line 1, the Breitbart article implies the greater scientific community considers Judith Curry nuts for her opinions on climate change, which is not true at all. In the context of the article, there is a heavy implication that Curry herself is a climate change skeptic--despite the fact that she actually referred to between 90 and 99% of anti-climate change science as "crankology" in the Scientific American article linked.
I might go line by line through the whole piece later for the sake of being thorough, but for now I'll say that the majority of the quoted individuals in this article are implied to be "skeptics," but quite a few seem to be scientists (or non scientists) who believe in the existence of climate change and simply want to be sure governmental or scientific pressure isn't stifling counterarguments and limiting debate.
Several of the comments on the Obama administration's funding of climate change research are also exaggerated at best. We've been funding climate research since the '80s, and the focus and spending gradually shifted against climate change skeptics as larger amounts of research and models seemed to favor the opposing side. The article's implication that the Obama administration has stifled scientific progress through biased research funding is disingenuous--fairly overwhelming evidence from the side believing in the existence of climate change led to them gradually receiving greater and greater funding. It's a vicious cycle (initial success breeds opportunity for more success; initial failure means you lose funding), but it's how the scientific community has operated for decades, in almost every field.
On another note, the title of this thread is even more disingenuous than the Breitbart article. The article is subtle and carries heavy implications, but all it really says is that there now might be some slight debate (instead of the scientific community's near complete acceptance) of climate change. I assume this will lead to a bit more of what Curry describes as "crankology" showing up before we end up back at the conclusion that the predictive models of the pro-climate change camp, though flawed, are better than anything the anti camp has ever produced.