问答题
It's a safe bet that the millions of Americans who
have recently changed their minds about global warming—deciding it isn't
happening, or isn't due to human activities such as burning coal and oil, or
isn't a serious threat—didn't just spend an intense few days poring over
climate-change studies and decide, holy cow, the discrimination of continuous
equations in general circulation models is completely wrong! Instead, the
backlash (an 18-point rise since 2006 in the percentage who say the risk of
climate change is exaggerated, Gallup found this month) has been stoked by
scientists' abysmal communication skills, plus some peculiarly American
attitudes, both brought into play now by how critics have spun the "Climategate"
e-mails to make it seem as if scientists have pulled a fast one.
Scientists are lousy communicators. They appeal to people's heads, not
their hearts or guts, argues Randy Olson, who left a professorship in marine
biology to make science films. "Scientists think of themselves as guardians of
truth," he says. "Once they have spewed it out, they feel the burden is on the
audience to understand it" and agree. That may work if the
topic is something with no emotional content, such as how black holes form, but
since climate change and how to address it make people feel threatened, that
arrogance is a disaster. Yet just as smarter-than-thou condescension happens
time after time in debates between evolutionary biologists and proponents of
intelligent design (the latter almost always win), now it's happening with
climate change. In his 2009 book, Don't Be Such a Scientist:Talking Substance in an Age of Style, Olson recounts a 2007 debate
where a scientist contending that global warming is a crisis said his opponents
failed to argue in a way "that the people here will understand". His
sophisticated, educated Manhattan audience groaned and, thoroughly insulted,
voted that the "not a crisis" side won. Like evolutionary
biologists before them, climate scientists also have failed to master
"truthiness" (thank you, Stephen Colbert), which their opponents—climate deniers
and creationists—wield like a shiv. They say the Intergovernmental Panel on
climate Change is a political, not a scientific, organization; a climate mafia
(like evolutionary biologists) keeps contrarian papers out of the top journals;
Washington got two feet of snow, and you say the world is warming?
There is less backlash against climate science in Europe and Japan, and
the U.S. is 33rd out of 34 developed countries in the percentage of adults who
agree that species, including humans, evolved. That suggests there is something
peculiarly American about the rejection of science. Charles Harper, a devout
Christian who for years ran the program bridging science and faith at the
Templeton Foundation and who has had more than his share of arguments with
people who view science as the Devil's spawn, has some hypotheses about why that
is. "In America, people do not bow to authority the way they do in England," he
says. "When the lumpenproletariat are told they have to think in a certain way,
there is a backlash," as with climate science now and, never-endingly, with
evolution. (Harper, who studied planetary atmospheres before leaving science,
calls climate scientists "a smug community of true believers". )
Another factor is that the ideas of the Reformation—no intermediaries
between people and God; anyone can read the Bible and know the truth as well as
a theologian—inform the American character more strongly than they do that of
many other nations. "It's the idea that everyone has equal access to the
divine," says Harper. That has been extended to the belief that anyone with an
Internet connection can know as much about climate or evolution as an expert.
Finally, Americans carry in their bones the country's history of being populated
by emigrants fed up with hierarchy. It is the American way to distrust those who
set themselves up—even justifiably—as authorities. Presto: climate
backlash. One new factor is also at work: the growing belief in
the wisdom of crowds (Wikis, polling the audience on Who Wants to Be a
Millionaire). If tweeting for advice on the best route somewhere yields the
right answer. Americans seem to have decided, it doesn't take any special
expertise to pick apart evolutionary biology or climate science. My final
hypothesis: the Great Recession was caused by the smartest guys in the room
saying, trust us, we understand how credit default swaps work, and they're
great. No wonder so many Americans have decided that experts are idiots.
问答题
What is the "Climategate"? What is the recent debate about global warming?
【正确答案】The term "Climategate" refers to the heated debate (argument) over the issue of global warming. The issues include: whether global warming is happening, whether it is caused by human activities, whether it is a serious threat to humankind, or whether "the risk of climate change is exaggerated". According to the author, millions of Americans have changed their minds about the climate issue and are starting to question the views and theories proposed by scientists.
问答题
Explain the sentence "Scientists are lousy communicators" (para. 2). Introduce briefly Randy Olson's opinion about scientists.
【正确答案】It is a critical comment of scientists. Randy Olson doesn't agree with the scientists' approach to climate prediction and their attitudes toward the public. When they think of themselves as "guardians of truth" and force the public to understand and accept their prediction on climate change (which in fact may not really tell the truth), their condescending (patronizing) attitude makes the audience unhappy or "feel threatened". They do not treat the audience equally, the result is that more people turn to the "not a crisis" side and become their opponents.
问答题
Why does the passage say that "arrogance is a disaster" (para. 3)?
【正确答案】It is a heavy criticism of the arrogant attitude of scientists over the issue of global warming. Their communication often leads to negative response from the public, causing people to doubt their prediction of global warming and their approach towards climatic change. Their "smarter-than-thou" attitude often observed in debates over climate change makes people feel threatened, insulted or humiliated, arousing resentment and opposition from the audience.
问答题
Why have so many Americans decided that experts are idiots?
【正确答案】The author shows that the "rejection of science" is a peculiar American attitude, they "do not bow to authority" in the way people do in some other countries. The ideas of the (religious) Reformation have stronger influence over the American character. It is a country with a large population of emigrants, so they have a tradition of being "fed up with hierarchy". Today, with Internet, people think "they can know as much about climate or evolution as an expert". It is an "American way" "to distrust those who set themselves as authorities". And today's "growing belief in the wisdom of crowds" also contributes to the formation of such an attitude.
【答案解析】[解析] 对文章基本内容的理解，主要内容见最后三段。作者通过对气候门事件的介绍，揭示了部分气象科学家的傲慢态度引起的民众的抗议和不满，而且在网络时代的今天，美国人对这样的科学家的蔑视自然在所难免，加之作为移民民族的传统特点，因而流露出experts are idiots的愤激言辞来。