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."

1.Why is Bjorn Lomborg criticized by environmentalists?
　　[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.

2.We can learn from the text that The Skeptical Environmentalist is a book

　　that__________.
　　[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

3.Conservatives worldwide share with Lomborg the same view that deforestation and

　　global warming are _______.
　　[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

4.The scientists, according to the text, demand that Cambridge University

　　Press____________.
　　[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

5.What does the author think of the criticism against Lomborg’s book?
　　[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

　　篇章剖析

　　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。

　　词汇注释

　　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

　　难句突破

　　But to look at the data on global warming, biological diversity, marine depletion and deforestation and still things are generally getting better takes a willful blindness.

　　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 w