Belgian climatologist Michel Crucifix has published an interesting post about climatologists' engagement with the wider world. There's a bit of a language barrier here - Prof Crucifix's English is in need of a polish - but he seems to be saying that we "deniers" (yes, he uses the d-word) should show a bit more respect because he's the expert.
I believe, as a climate scientist, that there is not benefit to be gained from engaging discussion with an individual or with a group if my authority is not acknowledged.
He is using the word "authority" in a different way to normal, so there is perhaps less cause for alarm than you might at first think. He defines it as a combination of "expertise" and "fairness". By the latter term I think he he means something like "objectiveness" - not being an advocate - and he spends quite a lot of the post discussing expertise, describing the complexities and the judgement calls involved in climatology - it's a post-normal science you see.
His demand to have his authority recognised is not, I think, a demand to accept his arguments.
Having authority does not protect against the duty of explaining how and why you arrive at this or that conclusion, and it does not guarantee anyone that all what you say is right.
What it seems to boil down to is this: if you front to Prof Crucifix and tell him he is wrong, he will not engage. If you ask him to explain he will do so.
I'm not sure that whether this is special pleading or merely a demand for courtesy. Either way, I think it's quite interesting.