Briefly, Manzi is accusing Levin of not believing in global warming for the wrong reasons, and not believing the academics who, according to Wikipedia, from which he has cut and pasted, do believe it. But Manzi [Send him mail] only believes in "settled science" when it suits him—see Steve Sailer's National Review "Determined" To Ignore Realities Of Genetics [May 26, 2008], and An Open Letter To National Review's Jim Manzi On "Escaping the Tyranny of Genes" [May 29, 2008] where Manzi comes down strongly in favor of the "blank slate" theory of genetics.
I found out about this via Dan Riehl's Carnivorous Conservative. Riehl is not impressed at NRO's giving Manzi a forum in which to carry water for Al Gore, and writes
NRO does not yell Stop today. It yells Maybe! And it's increasingly careful to give voice to watered down and even oppositional arguments. It does that because it is encumbered by all the things that encumber any institution as it gains mass and ages.That's what we've been saying here for years.
So, is it an establishment Republican media outlet that gives voice to some fine conservatives? Yes, it is. But it can not be that and the cutting edge of today's conservative movement. Many may find it to still be a good product. Good. Enjoy! But even a good product thus compromised isn't prepared to lead anything, as it can't even make up it's mind what actual cause, or position it should be leading on, let alone how.
If there is to be a new conservative awakening in America, it will come from outside the beltway, not in. And it will be led by grassroots, not establishment media. As NRO is on the wrong side in both those regards, other than some good information it provides on occasion, I couldn't care less what it says, or does. And much of the best work of its masthead conservatives comes from their work outside NRO anyway.[NRO's Problem ]