News Flash: WUWT's Anthony Watts claims all Christians believe Bible 100% Inerrant

... 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.
PLEASE DON'T PUT MY WORDS INTO DR. MANN'S MOUTH ! If you find a fallacy with Mann's remarks quote him - not me !

But back to this worm-hole of Biblical inerrancy…
I’m not sure what you’re trying to claim - that there is no contradiction between the bible and science?
As for my cynicism towards Dr. Spencer and anyone who feels they personally understand the Word and Will of “GOD” - what can I say - sounds crazy to me. Also sounds like a pretty clear definition for Hubris to me.
As for biblical inerrancy - I don’t have the time, fortunately, other have taken the time to write up some interesting observations:
A List of Biblical Contradictions (1992)
Jim Meritt
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
~ ~ ~
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Problems_with_biblical_inerrancy
~ ~ ~
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

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.
I have no idea what your point was with the poll you linked. And obviously we've all been going at it the wrong way, considering that absolutely nothing of consequence has been done these past decades to address humanity's unsustainable population growth and greenhouse gas injections into our atmosphere - since openly realizing the seriousness of the problems we were creating for our selves as far back as the 1970s ! But, a good deal of that problem has to do with a well crafted campaign of Manufacturing Doubt through any PR means possible. A campaign that holds to no rules of evidence or engagement.
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2013/04/james-taylormeltdown-of-global-warmists.html I want to consider Mr. Taylor's complaint in more detail - please mind you, I don't know Dr. Mann and am speaking for myself: A constructive debate demands a level playing field, a landscape of trust and respect. Along with mutually agreeable guidelines of behavior and evidence. Scientific consensus skeptics have shown repeatedly that fidelity to the truth and mutual respect along with some introspection and self-skepticism are totally absent from their own world views. Furthermore, they love drama and demonizing, {as repeatedly proven by Mr. Taylor's own extreme, almost paranoid, Forbes articles. Same sorts of tactics used by Spencer, Watts, McIntyre and other climate science deniers}. Scientists aren't into any of that stuff - ignore real facts, avoid questions, attack with misdirection, You're done - times up!!! BS and salesmanship and deceptive wordsmithing is NOT their style. They don't have the time - life is too short! If you don't have any integrity and base honesty they don't have the time or interest. That, and more, is plenty enough reason for serious scientists to stay away from FOX/Watts/Spencer/LordMonckton style mud fighting... er "debates" wink, wink.
Seems simple, straight forward and polite. Roy Spencer rejects current climatological understanding. True, check out Roy's website]. Roy Spencer also rejects the scientific understanding regarding biological evolution. Dr. Spencer is in fact, a firm Young Earth Creationist] {a notion that can not survive rational scrutiny}.
If thats true someone should show him the "misconceptions of evolutions" page on the University of California's website
Yea Abdul, posting URLs can be a little tricky over here. {My suggestion if one way don't work, play with it and there's probably another approach that will.} Looked at the links interesting stuff, but I'll bet Roy Spencer knows all about that stuff, just like deep down I believe he understands climate science - he's just got that mental divide that won't allow his ego & ideology to be subjugated to his rational side.
PLEASE DON'T PUT MY WORDS INTO DR. MANN'S MOUTH !
I don't do that at all, do I?
If you find a fallacy with Mann's remarks quote him - not me !
I did that ages ago], noting that Mann's words that you quoted constitute a fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. Having done that, I can refer back to Mann's statement without somebody jumping to the conclusion that I'm putting words in Mann's mouth. Or maybe not. I think I've made my point. You erred, and you should correct the error (I'm not going to police you on it. You say you've corrected it. If so, good). I posted the survey data so that you could see the state of public opinion on climate change. Your approach to arguing your position has a number of weaknesses if you're trying to sway those in the middle. If you're not worried about swaying those in the middle, then you can safely ignore my criticisms. Cheers.
PLEASE DON'T PUT MY WORDS INTO DR. MANN'S MOUTH !
I don't do that at all, do I?
If you find a fallacy with Mann's remarks quote him - not me !
I did that ages ago], noting that Mann's words that you quoted constitute a fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. Having done that, I can refer back to Mann's statement without somebody jumping to the conclusion that I'm putting words in Mann's mouth. Or maybe not. I think I've made my point. You erred, and you should correct the error (I'm not going to police you on it. You say you've corrected it. If so, good). I posted the survey data so that you could see the state of public opinion on climate change. Your approach to arguing your position has a number of weaknesses if you're trying to sway those in the middle. If you're not worried about swaying those in the middle, then you can safely ignore my criticisms. Cheers. ========================================================= Excuse me for yelling... but I think this was still ringing in my ears
... 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.
Guess if you want to see Mann's statements of clear facts, highlighting the disparity in scientific integrity between Spencer's approach to science and Mann's - guess you will... also please keep in mind it isn't like that statement is all there's to it... a lot of nasty history you are conveniently ignoring... got rolled into Mann's short rejection of the idea of "debating" (read public circus) a character like Spencer and at FOX of all places. What about the massive debate that's been raging within the scientific community these past decades - the REAL DEBATE, where constructive outcomes and learning is the golden goal - the scientific debate that makes it beyond clear what we are doing it our life sustaining atmosphere and biosphere??? ~ ~ ~ The flaw in your neat sounding reasoning is the reality of the situation and the history of Spencer and Watts in the public "debate". These "manufactures of doubt" have become so adept at the art of the 'rhetorical winning mean everything' debates. It is a PR debate where one side is expected to adhere to rules of ethics and engagement and the other side isn't bound by any of those constraints and only has winning the debate and muddling the questions/answers in the public mind. The debate among scientists This brings me back to the question of why real scientists won't debate "Climate Science Skeptics"
A constructive debate demands a level playing field, a landscape of trust and respect. Along with mutually agreeable guidelines of behavior and evidence. Scientific consensus skeptics such as Mr. Watts, Dr. Spencer, FOX "news" network, have shown repeatedly that fidelity to the truth and mutual respect along with some introspection and self-skepticism are totally absent from their own world views. Furthermore, they love drama and demonizing. Scientists aren't into any of that stuff - ignore real facts, avoid questions, attack with misdirection... Your Done! - Times Up!!! BS and salesmanship and deceptive wordsmithing is NOT their style. They don't have the time - life is too short! If you don't have any integrity and base honestly they don't have any time or interest. That, and more, is plenty enough reason for serious scientists to stay away from Watts/Spencer/LordMonckton style mud fighting... er "debates" wink, wink. Why Real Climate Scientists won't debate Internet Climate Science Skeptics]
And that my dear friend is why it isn't reasonable to expect serious scientists to get into a fake political debate, with rhetorical experts who idea of winning is to totally muddle understanding rather than to help clarify and learn!
But back to this worm-hole of Biblical inerrancy... As for biblical inerrancy - I don't have the time, fortunately, other have taken the time to write up some interesting observations: A List of Biblical Contradictions (1992) Jim Meritt http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html ~ ~ ~ http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Problems_with_biblical_inerrancy ~ ~ ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
I think a better sources is here: http://www.bartdehrman.com/ Infidels is kind of ok, I dont think most people there are professor of religious studies/history (there a few exceptions and I could be wrong.) As for the wikis, it is interesting (and kind of funny) to know that they say Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_wikis_reliable_sources.3F
Who needs the Universrity of California when you have the Koran? Haven't you heard the Muslims say that Jews have evolved from apes? That is correct, isn't it? ;-)
The verse I think you are reffering to is [002:065] sir. It states And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." No where is there a reference to all Jews, nor does it state that "All jews came from these people" Interestingly one scholar wrote an interesting commentary stating that: The exact manner in which their transformation into apes took place is disputed. Some scholars are of the opinion that the transformation was a physical one, while others hold that they were invested with the attributes characteristic of apes http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem2.php?sura=2&verse=62&to=71 This then leads the question "does the former interpretation make sense". That depends on philophical background. David Hume would have argued if it occured we can never prove it (Bart Ehrman seems to argue similar). Anthony flew would say that there is such a being who could do this, but such a being does not dwelve in such affairs. (I could be wrong about the details of these two philosophers) But regardless, to answer your question: No, the quran does not say "Jews are from apes"

What about the flying horse? Is that in the Koran?

What about those talking trees that hate Jews who hide behind them with the exception of that one special Jew hiding tree. Muslims are supposed to kill the Jews before the end of time will come, but if they can’t get the ones behind the tree … What a delimma!
Cap’t Jack

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.
Bryan, I've been reviewing you're comments and have been trying to wrap my head around what you are trying to express to me. Here's a good first stumbling block, because to me a Biblical inerrantist is exactly like a wooden-disconnected from life-literalist

Bryan,
I posted something] at the “Philosophy” board… I’d be curious of your thoughts

CC:

Here’s a good first stumbling block, because to me a Biblical inerrantist is exactly like a wooden-disconnected from life-literalist
IMO these "Bible inerrantist's" are doing nothing but insulting one of the great basic collections of documents in Western society. They are doing nothing but perverting it to support their own narrow-minded positions and often their hatred of other humans who don't live by their narrow and misguided positions. They refuse to study its history, its origins and the used it has been put to. These people only seem to accept the idea of sinners being stoned for their sins and not the forgiveness that is the basis of the the Bible's long term power. The God they are creating is the vengeful one not the loving one. According to their own precepts it appears their Devil has won with them. (Yea, I grew up as a Baptist and can preach like one at times. >:( )
CC:
Here’s a good first stumbling block, because to me a Biblical inerrantist is exactly like a wooden-disconnected from life-literalist
IMO these "Bible inerrantist's" are doing nothing but insulting one of the great basic collections of documents in Western society. They are doing nothing but perverting it to support their own narrow-minded positions and often their hatred of other humans who don't live by their narrow and misguided positions. They refuse to study its history, its origins and the used it has been put to. These people only seem to accept the idea of sinners being stoned for their sins and not the forgiveness that is the basis of the the Bible's long term power. The God they are creating is the vengeful one not the loving one. According to their own precepts it appears their Devil has won with them. (Yea, I grew up as a Baptist and can preach like one at times. >:( )
Hmmm, If we are now talking about the Bible as a great book... well, that's what they keep telling me. All I know for sure is every time I open it randomly, and do some reading (I've done it many times), I'm put off, sometimes appalled, only very occasionally impressed. So fine, it's got a value - if you insist - but not anywhere near Earth Sciences, or Climatology, or any of that serious discussion. Want to do something useful with the Bible, use it to help the masses of people pull their collective heads out of their willfully ignorance steadfastly oblivious asses and start getting real about what we are doing to our children's physical world ! >:-(

CC
What I am refering to is that is the single collection of books that had the greatest influence on Western Society. If you study it as a historical document and see how it was applied to being various groups of people together either to support the cirrent elities or to oppose them I think you will be pursuing one of the most important studies in political history. Look at it various components as political tracts, not the word of any god and explore the conditions surrounding their orgination and later use.

I do believe that all christian believe in bible, but not all have a strong faith in Jesus Christ. Now a days, there been a lot of religion out there in the world and they believe in bible. The religion is not important cause religion cant save us, its our faith in him.