It is worth noting that anyone even remotely skeptical of the standard model of global warming faces an almost insurmountably quixotic task．The view that human industrial and other economic activity is filling the air with carbon dioxide and causing the planet’s temperature to rise is taught to nearly all the nation’s children and has been for years．①It continues to be taught all the way through high school and into college．It is endlessly reported in the newspapers and on the evening news broadcasts．It is repeated on the Weather Channel and is the subject of frequent cable television specials and documentaries．In all of this，it is only very rarely admitted that climate is an intensely complex subject in general，that climate-change science in particular is still in its infancy，and that，though many respected scientists believe the standard model to be correct，many other respected scientists disagree．②
The task of the skeptic is made even more difficult by the burgeoning effort to silence dissent．There have been calls recently to equate global-warming skeptics with Holocaust deniers and to have them punished as the equivalent of war criminals．④0n September l 9，2006，in a post on the blog run by environmentalist magazine Grist，David Roberts wrote：“When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warmin9，when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage，we should have war crimes trials for these b*****ds——some sort of climate Nurember9．’’
This type of rhetoric has not been confined to just one anti—heresy crusader．Columnist Vin Suprynowicz，editorial page editor for the Las Vegas Reviezo-Journal，pointed out in a recent column that“the British foreign secretary‘has said that skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and denied access to the media’”and that“European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told the BBC that people should view the battle against climate change as a war--accepting the privations of a wartime economy and expecting millions of casualties．”④
There are two points to consider about this effort to stifle debate about global warmin9．The first is that it may signal recognition among some global-warming proponents that skeptics have been increasingly successful at pointing out flaws in the accepted theory．@If you are beginning to lose a debate，why not attack the character of the other side or even suggest that that side be outlawed?The second point to consider，and one related to the first，is that the proper response to calls to outlaw dissent is for the dissenters to very coolly and carefully persist in their arguments．[436 words]
1．The first paragraph is written to show that______．
A．global warming is a topic popular in various media
B．many human activities are causing global warming
C．global warming is not an issue worth much attention
D．it’s rather difficult for people to doubt global warming
2．According to David Roberts，global warming______．
A．will undoubtedly become as serious as a global war
B．remains to be proved with more scientific evidences
C．is an indubitable issue not to be challenged by anybody
D．is going to bring about more serious damage than a war
3．“This type of rhetoric”in the beginning of Paragraph 4 refers to______．
A．the ideal that one anti—heresy crusader has been fighting for
B．what David Roberts said in his．blog about global—warming skeptics
C．the relationship between global-warming skeptics and war criminals
D．the quixotic attitude taken by a well-known global warming proponent
4．It can be inferred from the text that Vin Suprynowicz______．
A．sides with David Roberts on the issue of global warmin9
B．disagrees with what the British foreign secretary has said
C．views the present battle against climate change as a global war
D．eagerly expects numerous casualties caused by global warming
5．The author suggests that，facing the challenge from the skeptics，global warming proponents should______．
A．do away with it as best they can
B．ignore it totally and permanently
C．manage to come to terms with it
D．try their best to stifle it in its infancy
The task of the skeptic is made even more difficult by the burgeoning effort to silence dissent．There have been calls recently to equate global-warming skeptics with Holocaust deniers and to have them punished as the equivalent of war criminals．④0n September l 9，2006，in a post on the blog run by environmentalist magazine Grist，David Roberts wrote：“When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warmin9，when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage，we should have war crimes trials for these b*****ds——some sort of climate Nurember9．’’
This type of rhetoric has not been confined to just one anti—heresy crusader．Columnist Vin Suprynowicz，editorial page editor for the Las Vegas Reviezo-Journal，pointed out in a recent column that“the British foreign secretary‘has said that skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and denied access to the media’”and that“European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told the BBC that people should view the battle against climate change as a war--accepting the privations of a wartime economy and expecting millions of casualties．”④
There are two points to consider about this effort to stifle debate about global warmin9．The first is that it may signal recognition among some global-warming proponents that skeptics have been increasingly successful at pointing out flaws in the accepted theory．@If you are beginning to lose a debate，why not attack the character of the other side or even suggest that that side be outlawed?The second point to consider，and one related to the first，is that the proper response to calls to outlaw dissent is for the dissenters to very coolly and carefully persist in their arguments．[436 words]
1．The first paragraph is written to show that______．
A．global warming is a topic popular in various media
B．many human activities are causing global warming
C．global warming is not an issue worth much attention
D．it’s rather difficult for people to doubt global warming
2．According to David Roberts，global warming______．
A．will undoubtedly become as serious as a global war
B．remains to be proved with more scientific evidences
C．is an indubitable issue not to be challenged by anybody
D．is going to bring about more serious damage than a war
3．“This type of rhetoric”in the beginning of Paragraph 4 refers to______．
A．the ideal that one anti—heresy crusader has been fighting for
B．what David Roberts said in his．blog about global—warming skeptics
C．the relationship between global-warming skeptics and war criminals
D．the quixotic attitude taken by a well-known global warming proponent
4．It can be inferred from the text that Vin Suprynowicz______．
A．sides with David Roberts on the issue of global warmin9
B．disagrees with what the British foreign secretary has said
C．views the present battle against climate change as a global war
D．eagerly expects numerous casualties caused by global warming
5．The author suggests that，facing the challenge from the skeptics，global warming proponents should______．
A．do away with it as best they can
B．ignore it totally and permanently
C．manage to come to terms with it
D．try their best to stifle it in its infancy