I’m not sure what your example is supposed to tell us.
It is supposed to show the absurdity of your assertion that “Believing the Bible is 100% innerant is in contradiction of logical, rationality and the full body of science.
Climate change is like Boyle’s Law in that there is no apparent reason, in principle, why a creationist, even a young-earth creationist, could not argue the science on a scientific basis.
But, seems to me an innerant view of the Bible seems to…
... make it impossible for believers to get their heads around the reality of evolution.
Pish-posh. It’s commonplace for an inerrantist to accept evolution as a process embedded in the design of the universe. “Inerrantist” and “Wooden-literalist” are not necessarily synonyms.
... make people think “God” is in control of the future and plans to destroy all this anyways; so we need not worry about what we are doing to our planet
Relevant how to the discussion of climate change science?
... make people think humanity can’t possibly be a destructive evolutionary force; after all “God” said multiply like rats and subjugate and consume all.
That’s a laughable straw man and even if it was true it would likewise provide no reason why an the individual could not discuss the science of climate change.
... make people believe in a self-created fairly tale lord and master who’s whispering into their minds; blocking them from rational examination of Earth’s processes.
Isn’t that just an excuse for pre-judging the debate? As I explained above, if Mann thinks he can win the debate and positively affect public acceptance by that strategy, then Spencer’s lack of a rational grasp of the reality of the earth’s processes provides a heightened attraction for the debate, all other things being equal.
... indicated a frightful amount of hubris
Again, hubris in one’s opponent is a reason to engage the debate. Pride does come before a fall—don’t we agree on that? You’re providing another reason to engage the debate, not avoid it.
You’ve got me repeating myself: If defeating the opposition in debate can increase public acceptance of Mann’s views on climate change then you’re not offering any reason at all why he should avoid the debate. Earlier, you mentioned some rational reasons, including the desire to dedicate time to science rather than debate. Mann will appear more rational if he publicly uses such rational reasons for avoiding the debate. Using personal attacks makes his position look weaker to those who do not agree with him already (allies may buy Mann’s expressed reasoning with enthusiasm, as you appear to do).
Mr. Watt, judging from the post we’ve looked at, appears to understand public communications rather well. He sees the weakness in Mann’s rhetoric and exploits it. And he has a good point. Mann’s answer at best suggests that the outcome of the debate would prove equivocal for the undecided persons in the audience regardless of the merits of Mann’s position. Watt could argue fallaciously that the reluctance proves that Mann’s argument would lose, but Watt stops well short of doing that, so far as I can tell.
At the bottom line, Mann’s not playing effectively to the undecided middle. And bluntly, you’re not either. Perhaps you get the most enthusiastic feedback for your posts when they’re hard-hitting and expressed in something beyond the calm language of logic and rationality (that’s one reason I can imagine you’re motivated to share them here among a (mostly!) friendly audience). On the plus side, there’s a place for that. But if your goal is to swing the opinions of climate change agnostics and skeptics then I’d question whether you’re going about things the right way.