"See how honest your mate is. See how he evades discussion of any real depth"

(He is not "my mate") however-----Does not follow that evading = dishonesty. Evading can simply be one interpretation of what I have accused Pete of: faulty reasoning based on unproven, embedded premises.

"He implies that myself, colleagues and friends who work in the earth sciences are dishonest, we're working to some sort of agenda and we manipulate our data to fit our a priori assumptions. I'm sure this happens with some scientists, but not in any I know... ...... It's bloody insulting to have your integrity called into question by someone making groundless and quite ignorant assumptions."

Yes, he does sometimes imply that some 'liberal' scientists pick & choose their data AND their interpretations. I combat that idea constantly..... however: there are subtle but crucial differences between "insulting" and "frustrating". I argue with Pete constantly, but I have never felt that my "integrity" was being questioned. You make the leap from what seem to be "groundless & ignorant assumptions" to having your integrity questioned with amazing agility.

All I am concerned with here is YOUR embedded premises about the intent & motivation of another person- as if you read minds over the internet.

Now- you do make important points:
" People want to teach the crap pete believes (based on the CMI website) as science in our schools. " Indeed... and in other threads *I* have noted this as a major concern. We have the problem² in the US, led by Texas. I was raised in Kansas, and remember how pervasive the issue was when I was in school.
I have never actually heard Pete himself advocate that, and I would react strongly if I did.

(are you reading this, Pete? What IS your position on separation of church & state?)

So....

"If you think the country I come affects the way I structure discussions, then widen your reading from both sides of the Atlantic. We have a very robust debating tradition in the UK, and this extends from the monkey house of the Commons to two blokes in the pub or around the Sunday dinner table. It's the way it is."

Yes...☺.. that seems to be the way it is:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit
I occasionally see "Prime Minister's questions" on BBC America, and am startled at the noise, cat calls, shouted insults & general furor as members take issue with each other's opinions. A "robust debating tradition" does not NEED to require taking a difference of opinion as "personal insult".... but once one side does so, the basic point often gets lost in the race to attach insults and question the integrity and motives of the opponent.
This happens to some extent in almost every society, and I have dealt with a few personal examples of it in MY life... but in a forum like this, I much prefer to confront & question the idea, the concept, the claim, the logic, the data, the interpretation and the sources, rather than 2nd guess the basic character of someone.