（记录，可能比较没有条理）

给科学blog评奖，对我来说是不重要的事情，因为我不相信投票机制在谈论科学问题上的作用（这也是为什么“大部分科学家的共识”对我来说不起作用）。

但是2007年最佳科学blog评奖的确值得记录一下，原因在于今年科学blog的投票由于被政治化而异常激烈，去年同样比赛的投票总量是22589（科学blog投票数较其他类别blog少），其中Pharyngula和Bad Astronomy分别以9417和9190票获得冠亚军。今年的投票总数则最后“调整”为53674（为什么调整后面会说到），是去年的两倍，前两名的得票数均为20000；并且有人利用程序漏洞投票作弊。作为一个跟进者，我目睹了最后一天的全部过程。

柿油派网站Think Progress在昨天（11月8日）美东时间下午2点发布了一条新闻，标题是：“Right Wing Campaigns To Get Climate Skeptic’s Blog Named ‘Best Science Blog’ In Weblog Awards”（类别是“Radical right-wing agenda”）。

boingboing的帖子叫做“Climate change denialists winning the race for `best science blog’”

Daily Kos: “Right wing bloggers are pushing a climate change denial site toward a webbie. Devilstower notes: `Climate Audit’ is the site that distorts, ignores, and `refutes’ climate change by spreading a layer of extra-crunchy brand right wing FUD.”

这里面提到的Climate skeptic’s blog、climate change denail site…… 就是上次发现了NASA的Hansen博士数据错误的Climate audit。我常去并且认为那是一个不错的科学网站、一个能分清科学和政治的网站，至于对全球暖化的态度，在该网站的FAQ中有这么一条：

“Does your work disprove global warming?

We have not made such a claim. There is considerable evidence that in many locations the late 20th century was generally warmer than the mid-19th century. However, there is also considerable evidence that in parts of the Northern Hemisphere, the mid-19th century was exceptionally cold. We think that a more interesting issue is whether the late 20th century was warmer than periods of similar length in the 11th century. We ourselves do not opine on this matter, other than to say that the MBH results relied upon so heavily by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2001 report are invalid.”

很遗憾这远远不够，无论内容是否合理，只要有过不利于“进步”一方的文章，就会被订在柿油派的政治十字架上（上述三个网站均没有能力从专业角度批评climate audit的文章，扣帽子是一个看似粗鲁却是无奈的唯一选择）。

在上述柿油派的网站新闻中，似乎是右翼团体在做政治文章，但是对挑起这场投票政治化竞争的自己一头的角色却显得“观察不够细致”，比如去年最佳科学blog的获奖blog “Pharyngula”，主人是美国的生物教授PZ Myers，在11月5日的“A few suggestions for the Weblog Awards”中该教授写道：

“Best Science blog: I voted for Invasive Species, which I’d like to see win, but I may have to throw my support to Bad Astronomy（前面写了，是去年的亚军） just to keep the bad climate blogs from winning.”

“The bad climate blogs”有两个，一个是Junk science，得票很少，当时紧随Bad Astronomy位居第二的是Climate audit，所以可以确定他指的是后者。

这里，他建议别人为了打击某个blog而“战术支持”Bad Astronomy，显然他不觉得有什么问题，或许是接近真理途中的必要手段，并且他暗示自己相当重要，有点举足轻重的意思（“I may have to throw my support to ….”，我甚至想到了south park）。有意思的是，当他发现Junk science在三天后也如发炮制，让支持者把票投给Climate audit时，却显然被激怒了：

“… so get out there and vote for Bad Astronomy for best science blog. The forces of stupidity have been motivated and are pushing a denialist blog up in the rankings, and it would be good to consolidate our votes and make sure a decent blog wins. Tim Lambert agrees, and also informs us that Steve Milloy has endorsed the Climate Audit blog — any doubt that it was an undeserving mouthpiece for right-wing hackery has now ended.”

这里的逻辑是：他主动“战术性”打击异己是正当的手段，climate audit被别人支持（注意是被动的），就成了是“an undeserving mouthpiece for right-wing hackery”的证据。作为教授，不太可能是真正的低智，但是显然不能说明他没有裸奔的爱好。

政治化的投票竞争异常激烈，不到最后一刻都不能确定鹿死谁手。我抄录climate audit一个网友对昨天部分时间的投票记录（CA: climate audit; BA： bad astronomy）：

EST…………………CA………………BA……Delta
3:59 PM …18828….17294…1534
4:16 PM …19259….17798…1461
4:44 PM …19735….18575…1160
4:53 PM …19783….18755…1028
5:03 PM …20131….18907…1224 （EST 5:00PM 投票停止）
5:17 PM …20242….18983…1259
5:31 PM …20247….19060…1187
5:54 PM …20555….19144…1411
6:22 PM …20613….19175…1438
6:34 PM …20615….19181…1434
8:20 PM …20634….20681….-47

可以看见，投票结束时，climate audit胜出，但是在投票结束数小时后，bad astronomy的票数突然增加了1400+票，反超climate audit，最后票数停止在BA 20683 : CA 20638（见下图）。在别的网站有人发现了作弊的方法，丢人的是，当其他blog比赛结果都公布后，技术类和科学类的却没有公布，因为要排除作弊票数（如果可能）。

现在，技术类仍然没结果，科学类的（折衷）结果是把BA和CA的票数都减到20000整，并列第一。

前面提到，柿油派的blog或者拥趸有个常见的毛病——一边给一点也不政治化的CA带上傻逼的帽子、斥其为右翼势力的同党，对自己、对明确表示要政治化投票的Myers教授只字不批。那么climate audit的看法如何？投票结束后，CA的Steve McIntyre写了一篇文章，表明了他对“政治化”的看法：

Why is this left and right?
By Steve McIntyre

OK, the voting is over. The vote (at closing) was CA 20,242; BA 18,993, but scrutinizing is still taking place. Thanks to everyone who supported Climate Audit. Both blogs obtained an incredible number of votes today and can walk away with both satisfaction and amazement. The volume in the Science blog today seems to have been far larger than any other race. Since mid-morning eastern, both Bad Astronomy and Climate Audit have amassed votes at almost exactly the same frenetic pace.

Prior to this vote, I (and doubtless many CA readers) had been unaware of the Bad Astronomy blog (and other interesting nominees who have undeservedly not attracted the attention that deserved) and I’m sure that this same holds in reverse. I hope that readers of each blog will take the opportunity of this introduction to visit the other site; I’ve added a link to Bad Astronomy in my very short blogroll.

Like many issues, the voting seems to have divided on left-right lines. While I realize that much of my support has come from right-wing sources, I don’t think that the analysis that’s done here is anything that should either comfort right-wing people or offend left-wing people. Sometimes the argument is made that, if Mann’s Hockey Stick were wrong, it means that the climate situation would be actually worse than people think. I ask “left-wing” readers to ponder this for moment: if the errors in Mann’s (and similar studies) result in a disguising of a problem, shouldn’t people concerned about AGW impact be on the cutting edge of attempts to analyze the Hockey Stick and see if there any defects in the analysis? Shouldn’t they be demanding that all the data used in these studies -even Lonnie Thompson’s - be available so that each one of them can be properly analysed?

Back when views on Iraq were more evenly divided, I sometimes compared what I do to being a CIA analyst arguing that sometimes an aluminum tube is just an aluminum tube and not evidence of WMD. That wouldn’t mean that proponents of the war couldn’t argue the matter using different arguments or that the war was or wasn’t justified, or that the subsequent occupation of Iraq was or wasn’t botched. All it means is that policy-makers shouldn’t be basing their decisions on questionable information about aluminum tubes. This was a line of argument that used to rub right-wing people who liked part of my message the wrong way, but I hope that it says something about me.

I’ve said on many occasions that, if I had a big policy job, I would be guided by the views expressed by large institutions. Unlike some “skeptics”, I don’t argue that decisions should be deferred pending perfect certainty. I have business experience and know that people make decisions all the time with uncertainty - you have to. At the same time, if you’re going to make effective decisions, you need to have the best possible information. And I vehemently disagree that scientists can use the “big picture” as a justification for being careless with their details. People should try their hardest to get the details right as well as the big picture.

So for any new readers, who have arrived because of this contest, welcome. To Bad Astronomy, it’s been an interesting way to meet. To Phil Plait, let’s have a beer some time.

PZ Myers at Pharyngula comments on the vote here and Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy here.

作为反例，投票结束后，当Myers教授和所有人一样都觉得CA胜利了的时候，估计是气疯了，他崩溃一样地喊政治口号、批判神创论者——因为他没有能力批评CA的内容，只能拿熟悉的神创论作比喻。AL Fin的评论恰如其分：

McIntyre has always displayed an abundance of class, and his post above is a good example. Blait displays only the mildest of “sour grapes”, although he does give in to that sentiment a bit more than is seemly. Myers, on the other hand, has come absolutely unglued in his invective and non-sequitur filled posting and comments. To make it worse, he goes over to Bad Astronomy and displays the same lack of class and good sense there. Someone obviously took this silly little blog award a bit too seriously.

的确是的，Myers教授太当真了点，在他的投票建议一文中，他决战前夕般写到：“Best online community: LGF （指little green football） must be destroyed, so I vote for Daily Kos”——也许当他发现CA获胜时，也有自己被destroyed的感觉。

Update:

看来早在11月2日，Myers教授就来了政治劲：

2007 Weblog Awards?

Category: Weblogs
Posted on: November 2, 2007 11:04 AM, by PZ Myers

I’m surprised to see Pharyngula has been nominated for Best Science Blog in The 2007 Weblog Awards — I hadn’t been paying attention at all. I am a bit disturbed by the company I’m keeping over there, though: I’m in the running with a couple of conservative junk science blogs. Go vote for one of the other people: I like In the Pipeline, Invasive Species is terrific, bootstrap analysis ought to do well, and they’ve even got that space-case, Bad Astronomy in there…sure, you can give him one or two votes (this is the one where you get to vote every day).