Science and politics make uncomfortable bedfellows. Rarely is this more true than in the case of climate change, where it is now time for emergency counseling. One point repeatedly made at last week's climate change congress in Copenhagen was that formulating an action plan to curb climate change is not a job of scientists.
Politicians may be left scratching their heads over what to do, but at this stage climate scientists cannot provide more guidance than they did in the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for two reasons.
First, models will never provide a straightforward prediction of how the climate will change. As one Copenhagen delegate put it: “Tell me what the stock market will do in 100 years and I will tell you what the climate will do.” Second as most climate scientists will agree, their role is not to formulate policy. They can provide more or less apocalyptic （大灾预测的）scenarios of what will happen if emissions hit certain thresholds, from burning forests to disappearing islands. But when politicians ask what is the absolute maximum amount of carbon dioxide we should allow to be pumped out, the answer is, invariably, how much risk do you want to take?
There are ways out of the deadlock. As the major climate negotiations in December approach, scientists need to be able to take off their labcoats sometimes and speak as concerned citizens. Some may feel uncomfortable with blurring the line between science and activism, but they should be aware that no one understands the risks better than they do and no one is better placed to give informed opinions.
Politicians, for their part, should stop begging climatologists for easy answers. What they need instead is a new breed of advisers to descend from the ivory towers of academia and join the climate fray—people who are willing and able to weight up the risks, costs and benefits of various degrees of action.
If all else fails, there may still be the safety net of geoengineering. As we have said on several occasions ,this option can no longer be dismissed as fantasy. Reputable scientists are discussing options among themselves and with policy-makers, but the fact that we are even considering it should spur governments to cut emissions, cut them deeply and cut them fast. Geoengineering is no get-out-of-jail-free card; it has dangers of its own. The military are already taking an interest, raising the spectra of climate weapons able to divert rainfall and bring drought. That is the last thing we want.
1.In the case of global warming, scientists （ ）.
2.Speaking of climate change, politicians （ ）.
3.To bridge the gap between the two sides, according to the passage, scientists are supposed to （ ）.
4.For their part, politicians ought to be reasonable and （ ）.
5.The author reminds those who are talking about geoengineering of （ ）.
问题1选项
A.tend to be more conservative than politicians
B.are in no position to offer a definite answer
C.never trust politicians as in other cases
D.feel incapable more than ever before
问题2选项
A.don’t like it when scientists are indirect
B.never see eye to eye with scientists there
C.seldom want to play the game with scientists
D.are left puzzled over the formulation of policy
问题3选项
A.act with more concern and enthusiasm
B.discard their prejudice towards politicians
C.be definite enough to offer informed opinions
D.do as concerned citizens do in protecting environment
问题4选项
A.pick up the right scientists for informed opinions
B.place policy and decision in the hands of scientists
C.receive reeducation in the ivory towers of academia
D.choose those who can provide a straightforward prediction
问题5选项
A.the other alternatives in the matter
B.the climate weapon as a double-edged sword
C.the dangers of the fantasy among the reputable scientists
D.the urgency of emission reduction on the part of governments
第1题:B
第2题:D
第3题:C
第4题:A
第5题:B
第1题:
【选项释义】
In the case global warming, scientists ____. 在全球变暖这种情况下，科学家____。
A. tend to be more conservative than politicians A. 往往比政客更保守
B. are in no position to offer a definite answer B. 无法给出一个明确的答复
C. never trust politicians as in other cases C. 从不像在其他问题上那样信任政客
D. feel incapable more than ever before D. 感觉比以前更无能
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干信息可定位到第二段“政客们可能会感到无所适从，但在这个阶段，气候科学家们无法提供比2007年政府间气候变化专门委员会报告中更多的指导”以及第三段“模型永远不会提供气候如何变化的直接预测”也就是说科学家们目前无法给出准确的答复。因此选B，in no position译为“无法、无从”。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“往往比政客更保守”，文中没有体现，该选项属于无中生有；
C选项“从不像在其他问题上那样信任政客”，文中没有提及，该选项属于无中生有；
D选项“感觉比以前更无能”，文中体现的只是说与以往一样，无法提供预测，并未提及“比以往更加无能”这层含义，属于过度推理。
第2题:
【选项释义】
Speaking of climate change, politicians ____. 说到气候变化，政客们____。
A. don’t like it when scientists are indirect A. 不喜欢科学家们拐弯抹角
B. never see eye to eye with scientists there B. 从来没有和那里的科学家意见一致
C. seldom want to play the game with scientists C. 很少想和科学家玩这个游戏
D. are left puzzled over the formulation of policy D. 对政策的制定感到困惑
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干信息可定位到第二段第一句“政客们可能会感到无所适从”，也就是感到困惑。因此选D。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“不喜欢科学家们拐弯抹角”，文中没有提及，该选项属于无中生有；
B选项“从来没有和那里的科学家意见一致”，曲解原文，该选项属于过度推断；
C选项“很少想和科学家玩这个游戏”，文中没有提及，该选项属于无中生有。
第3题:
【选项释义】
To bridge the gap between the two sides, according to the passage, scientists are supposed to ____.
根据文章，为了弥合双方的差距，科学家应该____。
A. act with more concern and enthusiasm A. 以更多的关注和热情来行动
B. discard their prejudice towards politicians B. 抛弃对政治家的偏见
C. be definite enough to offer informed opinions C. 足够明确，提供有见地的意见
D. do as concerned citizens do in protecting environment D. 像关心环境的公民一样保护环境
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干信息可定位到第四段最后一句“他们应该意识到，没有人比他们更了解风险，也没有人比他们更适合发表有见地的意见。”可推断科学家应该提供有见地的意见。因此选C。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“以更多的关注和热情来行动”，文章中没有体现科学家要更多关注和热情，该选项属于过度推断；
B选项“抛弃对政治家的偏见”，文中没有提及，该选项属于无中生有；
D选项“像关心环境的公民一样保护环境”，文章没有说为了弥补两方差距，科学家要保护环境，该选项属于无中生有。
第4题:
【选项释义】
For their part, politicians ought to be reasonable and ____. 从政客的角度来说，他们应该是理性的和____。
A. pick up the right scientists for informed opinions A. 挑选合适的科学家发表有见地的意见
B. place policy and decision in the hands of scientists B. 把政策和决策交给科学家
C. receive reeducation in the ivory towers of academia C. 应该在象牙塔里接受再教育
D. choose those who can provide a straightforward prediction D. 选择那些能提供直接预测的人
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干信息可定位到倒数第二段“他们需要的是一批新的顾问，从学术界的象牙塔中走出来，加入到气候冲突中来——这些人愿意并且能够权衡不同程度行动的风险、成本和收益。”也就是他们要新的顾问发表合适的意见。因此选A。
【干扰项排除】
B选项“把政策和决策交给科学家”，文中没有提及，该选项属于无中生有；
C选项“应该在象牙塔里接受再教育”，文中没有提及，该选项属于无中生有；
D选项“选择那些能提供直接预测的人”，文中倒数第二段提及“他们需要的是一批新的顾问，从学术界的象牙塔中走出来，加入到气候冲突中来——这些人愿意并且能够权衡不同程度行动的风险、成本和收益。”只是说需要一些新的顾问提供意见，并不是寻找能够直接预测的人，该选项属于过度推断。
第5题:
【选项释义】
The author reminds those who are talking about geoengineering of ____. 作者提醒那些谈论地球工程的人____。
A. the other alternatives in the matter A. 在这个问题上还有其他的选择
B. the climate weapon as a double-edged sword B. 气候武器是一把双刃剑
C. the dangers of the fantasy among the reputable scientists C. 著名科学家幻想的危险
D. the urgency of emission reduction on the part of governments D. 政府减排的紧迫性
【考查点】推理判断题。
【解题思路】根据题干信息可定位到最后一段“地球工程并不是一张免牢狱之灾的通行证；它有自己的危险。”由此可推断地球工程并不只有好处也有风险，地球工程是一把双刃剑。因此选B。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“在这个问题上还有其他的选择”，文中最后一段第一句提到“如果所有这些都失败了，地球工程的安全网可能仍然存在。”也就是说其他的选择失败了，只有地球工程这个选择，该选项属于反向干扰；
C选项“著名科学家幻想的危险”，文中提及“这种选择不能再被当作幻想而不予考虑。”没有说到这些幻想的危险，该选项属于过度推断；
D选项“政府减排的紧迫性”，这里主要强调地球工程是一把双刃剑而非政府减排，该选项属于本末倒置。
【参考译文】
科学与政治是一对令人不安的伴侣。在气候变化问题上体现得最为明显，现在是进行紧急咨询的时候了。上周在哥本哈根举行的气候变化大会上，人们反复提到的一点是，制定遏制气候变化的行动计划不是科学家的工作。
政治家们可能会为该怎么做而挠头，但在现阶段，气候科学家无法提供比政府间气候变化专门委员会2007年报告更多的指导，原因有二。
首先，模型永远无法直接预测气候将如何变化。正如哥本哈根会议的一位代表所说的那样：“告诉我100年后股市会怎样，我就会告诉你气候会怎样。”其次，大多数气候科学家都会同意，他们的职责不是制定政策。他们可以或多或少地提供一些大灾预测的情景，说明如果排放达到某些临界值，从燃烧的森林到消失的岛屿，将会发生什么。但是，当政治家们问我们应该允许排放的二氧化碳的绝对上限是多少时，答案总是：你愿意承担多大的风险？
摆脱僵局是有办法的。随着12月重大气候谈判的临近，科学家们有时需要脱下他们实验室的白大褂，以相关公民的身份发言。有些人可能会对模糊科学与行动主义之间的界限感到不舒服，但他们应该意识到，没有人比他们更了解风险，也没有人比他们更适合发表知情意见。
就政治家而言，他们应该停止向气候学家乞求简单的答案。相反，他们需要的是一批新的顾问，从学术界的象牙塔中走出来，加入到气候问题的争论中——他们愿意并能够权衡各种程度的行动的风险、成本和收益。
如果一切都失败了，还有地球工程这个安全网。正如我们在多个场合所说的那样，不能再把这一选择视为天方夜谭而不予考虑。声誉卓著的科学家们正在相互讨论各种方案，也在与政策制定者讨论，但我们甚至在考虑这个问题这一事实，就应该促使各国政府减少排放，大幅度减少，并迅速减少。地球工程不是免罪金牌，它本身就有危险。军方已经对此产生了浓厚的兴趣，提出了气候武器的概念，认为它可以改变降雨量，带来干旱。这是我们最不希望看到的。
