You'd love to ruin his career and publicly shame him for having incorrect views wouldn't you?

Awarding credibility on the basis of having a public face is absurd, and it's trivial to conceive of the way that could be politically silencing of dissident views, or that lack of anonymity would incentivize sticking to consensus.

People disagree anonymously on the internet all the time, since the beginning. Are you incapable of judging the merits of an argument without requiring some appeal to authority?