阅读理解 For many environmentalists, all human influence on the planet is bad. Many natural scientists implicitly share this outlook. This is not unscientific, but it can create the impression that greens and environmental scientists are authoritarian tree-huggers who value nature above people. That doesn't play well with mainstream society, as the apparent backlash against climate scientist revels.
Environmentalists need to find a new story to tell. Like it nor not, we now live in the antropocent (人类世)—an age in which humans are perturbing many of the planet's natural systems, from the water to the acidity of the oceans. We cannot wish that away we must recognize it and manage our impacts.
Johan Rockstrom, head of the Stockholm Environment Institute in Sweden, and colleagues have distilled recent research on how Earth systems work into a list of nine 'planetary boundaries' that we must stay within to live sustainably. It is preliminary work, and many will disagree with where the boundaries are set. But the point is to offer a new way of thinking about our relationship with the environment—a science-based picture that accepts a certain level of human impact and even allow us some room to expand. The result is a breath of fresh air: though we are already well past three of the boundaries, we haven't trashed the place yet.
It is in the same spirit that we also probe the basis for key claims in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report on climate impacts. This report has been much discussed since our revelations about its unsubstantiated statement on melting Himalayan glaciers. Why return to the topic? Because there is a sense that the IPCC shares the same anti-human agenda and, as a result, is too dangerous of unverified numbers. While the majority of the report is assuredly rigorous, there is no escaping the fact that parts of it make claims that go beyond the science.
Above all, we need a dispassionate view of the state of the planet and our likely future impact on it. There is no room for complacency: Rockstrom's analysis shows us that we face real dangers, but exaggerating our problems is not the way to solve them.

单选题 As the 1_st paragraph implies, there is between environmentalists and mainstream society ______.

单选题 Within the planetary boundaries, as Rochstrom implies, ______.

【正确答案】 C

【答案解析】 推理题。题干：正如Rochstrom所说，在行星界限内，______。用专有名词定位到第三段：这一结论的提出是为了给我们看待人与自然环境的关系提供一个新的视角：这一新视角以科学为依据，并允许一定程度的人类影响，甚至给了人们一定的拓展空间。由此可以推理得知，人类活动在一定程度上是可以被接受的。故本题答案为C。

单选题 The point, based on Rochstrom's investigation, is simply that ______.

单选题 Critical of the IPCC's 2007 report, the author argues that they ______.

【正确答案】 B

【答案解析】 细节题。题干：作者对IPCC2007年的报告持评判态度，他认为他们______。根据IPCC和2007定位到倒数第二段。该段讲到对于这份报告，人们觉得IPCC可能阐述了同样反人类的其他观点，所以报告中可能还存在很多未经证实的危险数字。虽然报告中的大部分内容确实是经过严密审核的，但不可否认的是，其中仍有一部分内容是没有科学依据的。由此可知，作者之所以批判该报告，是因其包含未经科学证实的内容。因此B选项最贴切。