题目内容
Despite the scandals over leaked e-mails, the scientific evidence for global warming remains strong. The question, then, is to what (62) have the controversies eroded (消弱) the public’s trust in climate science or, worse, in the scientists themselvesThere has (63) been some decline. (64) , a closer look at the data across multiple polls shows that, broadly speaking, the public trusts scientists, believes in global warming and wants governments to do something about it. The public seems to have done what the mainstream media could not: it has kept the scandals in (65) . The harsh verbal attacks (66) climate science and scientists are actually coming from a (67) handful of critics, and they do not (68) a broader revival of skepticism.Yet few climate scientists are likely to take (69) in this news. For them, the real (70) of public trust is the level of political (71) on global warming: if people truly believe the science, (72) why have so few of them demanded action of their governments The problem is that people assess information from any number of (73) , not just scientists. And people make decisions on the (74) of self-interest and their own hopes, fears and values, which will not necessarily (75) what many researchers deem self-evident.The scientific community must recognize that the (76) surrounding climate change can produce responses in the public and politicians on many different levels. Facts (77) matter. Scientists must continue to engage the public in plain language, (78) the evidence for climate change in a clear and (79) way. And they must provide policy-makers with accurate, credible and (80) information. Scientists will be only as persuasive as they are trusted, which means that cultivating the public’s trust must be the scientific community’s top (81) . 71（）
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Questions 19 to 21 are based on the conversation you have just heard.
Passage TwoQuestions 29 to 31 are based on the passage you have just heard.
No one in the conference is against the suggestion ______.(我们应该重视信息科技)．
During its formative years, the inner solar system was a rough-and-tumble place. There were a couple of hundred large objects flying around. Moon-size or bigger, and for millions of years they collided with one another. Out of these impacts grew the terrestrial planets—Mercury, Venus, Earth with its Moon, and Mars—and the asteroids.Scientists have thought of these collisions as mergers: a smaller object (the impactor) hits a larger one (the target) and sticks to it. But new computer modeling by Erik Asphaug and Craig B. Agnor of the University of California, Santa Cruz, shows that things weren’t that simple. "Most of the time, the impactor and the target go off on their merry ways," Dr. Asphaug said. About half the collisions are these hit-and-nm affairs. Now the two researchers and a colleague, Quentin Williams. have done simulations to study the effects of these collisions on the impactors. They are not pretty."The impactors suffer all kinds of fates," Dr. Asphaug said. They undergo tremendous shearing and gravitational forces that can cause them to fracture into smaller pieces or melt, causing chemical changes in the material and loss of water or other volatile compounds. Or the crust and cover can be stripped off. leaving just an embryonic iron core.The researchers, whose findings are published in Nature, discovered that two objects did not even have to collide to create an effect on the smaller one. from the gravitational forces of a near-collision. During the simulations. Dr. Asphaug said, "We’d look and say, ’Gosh, we just got rid of the whole atmosphere of that planetoid: it didn’t even hit and it sucked the whole atmosphere off.’"The researchers suggest that the remains of these beaten-up, fractured and melted objects can be found in the asteroid belt. Dr. Asphaug said that could explain the prevalence of "iron relics" in the belt. Some of these planetoid remnants also eventually hit Earth: that would help explain why certain meteorites lack water and other volatile elements.The hit-and-run collision model also provides an explanation for Vesta. a large asteroid with an intact crust and cover. How did Vesta keep its cover while so many other objects were losing theirs Dr. Asphang said it could be that Vesta was always the target, never the impactor, and was thus less affected. "It just had to avoid being the hitter," he said, "until bigger objects left the system." The model developed by Erik Asphaug and Craig B. can explain the following facts EXCEPT（）
微信支付 
支付宝支付