Snippets of articles don't give the full picture. Same article:

I don’t believe poor scientific communication should be criminalised because doing so will likely discourage scientists from engaging with the public at all.

Lawrence Torcello is also talking specifically about the people who finance climate change denialism because of "a financial or political interest," not the bloggers and scientists paid to produce articles supporting climate change denialism, or the general public who think climate change is a scam because of these paid articles.

I don't know anything about Peter Gleick, maybe he falsified a Heartland Institute document as the Breitbart article says, most likely he didn't and just forwarded them as he received them, since he was reinstated to the Pacific Institute after the investigation, but the link below about corporate funding is not from him and is definitely not controversial:

If those with a financial or political interest in inaction had funded an organised campaign to discredit the consensus findings of seismology, and for that reason no preparations were made, then many of us would agree that the financiers of the denialist campaign were criminally responsible for the consequences of that campaign. I submit that this is just what is happening with the current, well documented funding of global warming denialism.

I kind of agree that climate change denialism is similar to revisionism in the face of the evidence, and I think American lobbies are just plain corruption and were not elected to govern the country, but should these industrial moguls and politicians be on trial for it, that's a different matter. Interesting debate, though, but maybe more for the new Boiler Room since it's more about how politics and policies handle climate change than the consensual science behind it.