Oh Bullshit!
Somebody that non-sentient would have accidentally drown themselves in childhood staring up at the rain.

Mcaddled is looking for attention.

First Mathematics, now Science and Nature, McKardle providess a legacy of incisive analysis of all issues great and small. Pullitzer Prize Twit I would say. Who could imagine articles about nature would refer to the environment?

Shouldn’t MacCardle be put on a Government Commission to regulate the environment. There is an opening because Fossil Fuel Billionaire David KochRoach resigned from the Commission regulating toxic BPA.

Sorry, Megan, but your side is dying. The only questions left are how long it will take and how many of the rest of us you’re going to take down with you.

Oh, this is just another of many vying to be the female Ann Coulter.

I imagine this is just her being pissy cause all the inspiring prose about the majesty of nature that she used to enjoy ever so much on a rainy Sunday afternoon is being pushed aside by all those nasty, partisan anti-conservatarian, unserious shrill pleas by nature authors that people wake the hell up or there won’t be any nature to enjoy anymore.

It must be most irritating – why won’t the monkeys dance like they used to?

Shorter Meggers:

Climate change again? Blech. How bout an article on 100 bonobos tapping out The Fountainhead on 100 smith-coronas or a study of lemon grass as a replacement for iceberg lettuce?

Meg was later seen enjoying a plate of roast Sumatran Rhino with Cruella De Vil and Hoggish Greedly.

Nature writers know their subject and therefore tend to be environmentalists. Is she really that dense? (Rhetorical question!)

I used to read Oil and Gas Today before they started to gripe about the EPA.

Hey, somewhat OT, but the ads next to this article are actually for Himalayan crystal salt and Himalayan pink salt. somehow, I find this amusing.

Salt? I’m seeing a bonobo who looks a little like Suderman marked down $50.

She misses the cheeto-flavoring science articles, I suppose.

Damn, what an ace journalist she is: when the facts aren’t to her liking she just goes back to reading old news with which she agrees.

Let’s go peruse the contents of “Best Science and Nature Writing of 2005″, shall we?

The first essay is this one in favor of bold scientific atheism, by Natalie Angier. Uh-oh! If there’s anything most Cons publicly hate more than treehuggers, it’s atheists. Don’t Michele Bachmann about this!

The second essay: Connie Bruck’s “Hollywood Science”, a stunning plea for stem-cell research — another topic anathema to the Republican right.

In other words, don’t tell McMegan’s conservative buddies she’s a closet atheist.

Those damn feminists, writing about issues affecting women! Those damn science fiction anthologies, with all their speculative lit! Those damn Ayn Rand newsletters, with all their wanking!

LOVE the headline!

2005? That was, like, eleventy billion years ago. Using McArdle math, I mean.

I never thought about it, but her ‘assymetricinfo’ nym is kind of ironic. Information in, garbage out.

I really respect the tenacity with which some among us continue to fight back the wave of Our Megan’s effluent. I used to put some small amount of time in trying to analyze and debunk her stuff, but it was like being swamped by a relentless tide of shit-soaked feathers. I felt like a low-rent Canute, and gave up for the sake of my tenuous hold on what I am pleased to call ‘sanity’. It seems that somehow she has increased both the volume and velocity of her output, as well as the ‘quality’; it rather reminds me of my youth, when I used to work at a neighbor’s dairy farm – when a cow is ready to fire-hose, you get out of the way quick instead of trying to ward it off. Our Megan does seem to function rather like a dairy cow, but in true Randian style, she has stopped her output of ‘milk’ for the parasitic takers, and has limited her processing to “grass in” and “liquid shit out”.

I do it for the sheer enjoyment of how Bill-fucking-Kristol-counterfactual-level she is. After looking at this, I checked the Best Science and Nature Writing of 2005 against the 2010 version. The 2005 has 3/25 articles devoted to discussion of global warming, the 2010 has 1/25. And complaining about a series devoted to the discussion of Science and Nature discussing the environment? Classic.

And the fact that McArdle is effectively complaining that the editors are allowing a personal bias determine their writing? Ragegasm.