How did a lanky Danish vegetarian who wears T shirts to important meetings and votes only for left-wing politicians become the great Satan of environmentalism? By telling everyone he is an environmentalist but sounding like the opposite. "We are not running out of energy or natural resources," writes Bjorn Lomborg, 37, an associate professor of statistics at Denmark's University of Aarhus and a former member of Greenpeace, in his 1998 book The Skeptical Environmentalist. "Air and water around us are becoming less and less polluted. Mankind's lot has actually improved in terms of practically every measurable indicator."

 

The book, which was published in English last year, became a best seller, and conservatives worldwide use its ideas to justify inaction on such issues as deforestation and global warming. "We should do something that actually does good and not sounds good," he says of the expense of complying with the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. "For the cost of Kyoto for one year, we could give clean drinking water and sanitation to every human being on earth."

 

Some scientists say they initially hoped to ignore Lomborg but in the wake of his book's popularity have reacted with a fury rarely seen in academia. Peter Raven, chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, calls Lomborg "the prime example in our time of someone who distorts statistics and statements to meet his own political end." A dozen esteemed environmental scientists, including Raven and Harvard's Edward O. Wilson, are demanding that Lomborg's publisher cut him loose. "We are deeply disturbed that Cambridge University Press would publish and promote an error-filled, poorly referenced and non-peer-reviewed work," they write in a letter calling on Cambridge to transfer publishing rights to a popular, nonscholarly press.

 

The problem is, Lomborg gets many of his facts right--and provides 2,930 footnotes to make them easy to check. Some scientists and environmental advocates have made exaggerated claims about environmental doom, and it's not surprising that they have finally been catalogued. Yet Lomborg is as guilty of exaggeration and selective use of data as those he criticizes. He is right that air and water quality and agricultural productivity have improved in much of the world. But to look at the data on global warming, biological diversity, marine depletion and deforestation and still say things are generally getting better takes a willful blindness. That's why it's a shame so many of the attacks on Lomborg rely on name calling. All that does is avoid what could be a valuable debate on the substance of environmental policy--and, of course, help Lomborg sell books. "I'm making a fair amount of money from the book," says Lomborg. "A lot more than Cambridge thought."

 

注（1）：本文选自Time; 12/31/2000, p173；

注（2）：本文习题命题模仿对象2004年真题text 4；

 

 

[A] Because he has always been against protecting the environment.

[B] Because he put forward a new hypothesis of protecting the world environment.

[C] Because he claims to be an environmentalist but doubts that environmental problems are as serious as they used to be.

[D] Because he believes that environmental problems are becoming worse.

 

 

[A] has attracted attention from both the public and the scholars

[B] has been neglected by the readers since its publication

[C] has been greatly criticized by the readers since its publication

[D]has been greatly praised by the readers since its publication

 

 

[A] getting worse and worse because nothing has been done about them

[B] getting better and better because much money has been spent on them

[C] serious problems that should be solved at any cost

[D] not serious problems that should be solved at great cost at present

 

 

[A] sell all the books to a popular, non-scholarly press, for the book is full of errors.

[B] stop publishing the book and sell the publishing rights to a non-scholarly press, for the book is not an academic book

[C] stop publishing any books written by Lomborg, for he is not accepted by his peers

[D] transfer the publishing rights of the book to another press, for the book is not well referenced

 

 

[A] It is fair and has been conducted in a good way.

[B] It prevents Lomborg from getting more money from the book.

[C] It should not be name-calling, but should be carried out in a way that could start a meaningful discussion on how to solve environmental problems.

[D] It is not fair, for the book is well-referenced.

 

答案：C A D B C

 

本篇文章从介绍丹麦大学奥尔胡斯分校统计学副教授博兆恩·鲁姆伯克在《持怀疑态度的环抱主义者》一书提出的有关环境问题的新观点入手，介绍了学术界的反应以及作者的分析。第一段介绍了鲁姆伯克的个人情况及其在《持怀疑态度的环抱主义者》一书中提出的新观点，接着在第二段介绍了其支持者的意见，在第三段给出其反对者的意见，第四段分析鲁姆伯克赢得读者的原因、其观点存在的问题，并指出应如何正确对待这本书。

 

dart: [dB:t] n. 飞镖

revile: [ri5vail] v. 辱骂，斥责

dogma: [5dC^mE] n. 教条

lanky: [5lANki] adj. 瘦长的

Greenpeace  n. （保护动物不遭捕猎等的）“绿色和平”组织

indicator: [5indikeitE] n. 指标

justify: [5dVQstifai] v. 证明······是正当的

deforestation: [di7fCris5teiFEn]  n. 采伐森林

comply: [kEm5plai] v. 遵守，顺从

Kyoto Protocol 《京都议定书》

sanitation: [sAni5teiFEn] n. 卫生设施

academia: [7AkE5di:mjE] n. 学术界

American Association for the Advancement of Science: 美国科学促进会

distort: [dis5tC:t]v. 歪曲

cut sb. loose （与某人）断绝关系

advocate: [5AdvEkit] n. 提倡者，鼓吹者

catalogue: [5kAtElC^] v 列入

biological diversity 生物多样性

depletion: [di5pli:FEn] n. 损耗

willful: [5wilful] adj. 故意的

 

主体句式：to look at the data… takes a willful blindness。

结构分析：该句主语较长，且主语中含有并列和从属关系，不容易看清楚句子各成分之间的关系。“to look at the data on global warming, biological diversity, marine depletion and deforestation and still say things are generally getting better”是主语，其中“to look at… and still say…”是并列主语，“things are generally getting better”是say的宾语从句。整个句子的谓语是takes，宾语是“a willful blindness”。

句子译文：明明知道全球变暖、生物差异、海洋损耗、森林采伐等环境问题的数据，却仍然声称总的来说环境问题有好转，这是故意装着看不见。

 

1．  答案是C，属推理判断题。文章第一句话指出Bjorn Lomborg…the great Satan of

environmentalism，可推断出Bjorn Lomborg遭到环保主义者的抨击。接下来第二句“By telling everyone he is an environmentalist but sounding like the opposite. ”回答了为什么他会遭到抨击。原来他认为环境问题日益得到好转，不再是人类面临的大问题。

2．  答案是A，属推理判断题。从第二段第一行“The book, which was published in English last

year, became a best seller”可以看出该书吸引了广大民众的注意。第三段第一行“Some scientists say they initially hoped to ignore Lomborg but in the wake of his book's popularity have reacted with a fury rarely seen in academia.”进而证明该书不仅吸引了普通读者，也引起了科学家的注意。

3．  答案是D，属猜测意义题。文中第二段开头指出世界各地的保守派用鲁姆伯克书中的观

点为自己在解决森林采伐、全球变暖问题上的不作为辩解。并在引文中说：由此可猜测出保守派和

4．  答案是B，属于事实细节题。第三段第6—第9行“A dozen esteemed environmental

scientists, including Raven and Harvard's Edward O. Wilson, are demanding that Lomborg's publisher cut him loose. . . they write in a letter calling on Cambridge to transfer publishing rights to a popular, nonscholarly press.”可以说明科学家们要求剑桥大学出版社语鲁姆伯克断绝关系，停止出版、销售他的书，并将版权转让给非学术性出版社。与回答本体相关的关键词语有：cut sb. loose 表示“与······断绝关系”。promote：促销 nonscholarly：非学术性的。

5．  答案是C， 属推理判断题。在第四段开头，作者指出鲁姆伯克书中虽然有很多事实、

引证也显得很翔实，但鲁姆伯克书中不乏夸张和由选择地使用资料，而且还故意无视严重的环境问题，得出环境问题有好转的结论。因此，作者认为该书很片面。 但接着作者又指出对鲁姆伯克一味的谩骂或斥责无济于事，那样只会“avoid what could be a valuable debate on the substance of environmental policy”，应该就环境政策的实质问题展开有意义的讨论。由此可推断作者认为应该就此书展开讨论。

 

一个其貌不扬、不拘小节、政治上极其保守的丹麦素食主义者如何成为环保主义的大叛逆者？尽管他一直自称是一名环保主义者，可在他的论著中他却大唱反调。现年三十七岁的博兆恩·鲁姆伯克是丹麦大学奥尔胡斯分校统计学副教授，曾是“绿色和平”组织成员，在他1998年出版的《持怀疑态度的环抱主义者》一书中，他这样写道 “我们并没有面临能源和自然资源短缺的问题。我们周围的空气和水越来越洁净，事实上，几乎所有的测量指标都表明人类的命运已经得到改善。”

 

这本书的英译本去年一出版，就成为畅销书。世界各地的保守份子纷纷用书中的观点为自己在森林采伐和全球变暖等问题上的不作为作辩解。谈到遵循有关全球变暖的《京都议定书》的费用时，博兆恩·鲁姆伯克这样写道：“我们应该注重实效性，而不要一味追求表面效应，”“执行《京都议定书》一年的费用可以为地球上所有的人口提供洁净的饮用水和卫生设施。”

 

一些科学家说起初他们不想理睬鲁姆伯克的言论，可是随着《持怀疑态度的环保主义者》一书的不断升温，他们愤怒回击，其愤怒程度在学术界实数罕见。美国科学促进会主席彼得·瑞文就此发表评论时说：“在我们这个时代，一些人为达个人政治目的而歪曲统计数字和综述，鲁姆伯克就是最好的例子。”十多位德高望重的环境科学家，包括瑞文以及哈佛大学的爱德华·奥·威尔森要求鲁姆伯克的出版发行方剑桥大学出版社与他解除合作关系。他们联名写信给出版社说：“剑桥大学出版社出版发行这样一本错误百出、引证不详、未经同行评论过的作品，我们深感不安。”他们呼吁剑桥大学出版社将该书版权转让给一家通俗的、非学术性的出版社。

 

问题是鲁姆伯克书中包含大量事实，而且他还列出了2930条脚注，以方便读者查证。一些科学家和环保人士在他们的著说中确实夸大了环保问题的严重性，难怪他们都被列在其中。然而鲁姆伯克正像他所抨击的那些人一样，也存在夸大事实、有选择性地使用数据等问题。在世界的大多数地区，空气质量和水的质量已得到改善，农业产量有提高，在这一点上，鲁姆伯克是正确的。可是鲁姆伯克故意无视全球变暖、生物多样性、海洋损耗、森林采伐等方面的资料，仍然声称总的来说环境问题有所好转。非常遗憾，针对鲁姆伯克的攻击多半是人身攻击。这些漫骂不但妨碍人们就环境政策的实质问题展开有价值的争论，而且客观上帮鲁姆伯克卖书。鲁姆伯克说：“我从这本书上赚了一大笔钱，比剑桥预计得多得多。”