Jonah, those are good points. I suspect three weeks from now the debate over “epistemic closure” will seem even more precious and overwrought than it does now. One last thing on the Manzi v. Levin business: The “epistemic closure” school says the kerfuffle proves there are things you can’t say on NRO. But Manzi said a supposedly unsayable thing and Levin (and especially Andy McCarthy, who is always happy to hop into a foxhole with a friend) hit back and Manzi was free to reply however he wanted, which he did (engaging Andy at length and letting people judge his critique and Mark’s response on the merits). This is called having a blog where people are free to disagree. As far as the merits of the global warming exchange, I’m at a disadvantage not having read Mark’s chapter, but let me say this: 1) As a general matter, I’ve come to trust Jim’s analysis on global warming over the years; 2) I’m sure that Mark nails where the other side is coming from on the issue, and that his skepticism about “the consensus” is even more justified than when he wrote about it a year-and-a-half ago.