Of course, everyone should be treated with dignity. No, I don't think of climate scientists as being the modern equivalent of a Franciscan order. I don't think of their critics as the modern equivalent of a Franciscan order, either.
How are you defining that inflammatory word "chicanery," Eddie? If you mean that 10 years ago the CRU researchers did not share their data as openly as they should have, and that they made disparaging comments about their critics in their private conversations, I would agree with you. If you mean that they made invalid data adjustments or engaged in scientific misconduct, then I wouldn't--and would be happy to explain why. So instead of assuming you mean one thing or the other, I would like to ask you to clarify your statement.
Gerardus Bouw, who has a Ph.D. in astrophysics, complains of stifling orthodoxy in the world of astrophysics because his critics will not accept that the earth is unmoved, the structural center about which the rest of the universe revolves.
Jason Lisle, who has a Ph.D. in astrophysics, complains of a stifling orthodoxy among astrophysicists because they do not accept that the speed of light moves at infinite speed toward from the earth and at 1/2 * c away from the earth.
Open theists complain of the stifling orthodoxy among conservative theologians, who staunchly oppose their modern reformulations of ancient truths.
What I'm getting at is this: complaints about stifling orthodoxy are proof of nothing and evidence of very little...other than the obvious fact that the complainant feels aggrieved that the majority of his or her peers do not accept his or her work.
Sometimes the complainant turns out to be right. Galileo was right, for example. Luther was right about the corruption in Rome.
Sometimes the complainant turns out to be very wrong. Cold fusion still isn't accepted. The speed of light is still deemed c along every axis.
With regard to climate science, it appears that the complainants are very much wrong to the extent that they dismiss the dominant role of AGW. On the other hand, I do agree with the position that explanations of the probabilistic nature of the modeling could, and should, be improved.
I agree that fostering civility in debate is important. But is it the only concern we should focus on?
Should we be concerned about the billions of our fellow human beings who are at grave risk due to future effects of anthropogenic global warming?