33 What is the main idea of this passage?
(A) As technologies advance dramatically, predictions about climate change have become less challenging.
(B) There is an imminent global impact regarding climate change.
(C) The uncertainty surrounding climate change argues for action, not inaction.
(D) There is growing scientific evidence for climate change.

答案：登入後查看
統計： A(12), B(42), C(110), D(16), E(0) #1150832

詳解 (共 2 筆)

#2885232
翻譯參考: 沒有人知道未來全球溫度可能...
(共 681 字，隱藏中）
前往觀看
12
0
#3705448
       Nobody knows what the global temperature is likely to be in the future, for the climate is a system of almost infinite無限的，無邊的；極大 complexity錯綜複雜，複雜性.
Predicting how much hotter更热 a particular特殊的, 特定 level of carbon dioxide will make the world is impossible.
It’s not just that the precise準確的，確切 effect of greenhouse gases on temperature is unclear.
It may set off出發; 使爆發 mechanism機械零件系統, 體制，結構方式, 行為 that tend to cool things down (clouds which block ou擋住 unlight,for instance例如) or ones that heat the world  further、（far 的比較級）更遠地 (by melting soils泥土，土壤, in which greenhouse gases are frozen, for instance例如) . The system could right itself or spin out消磨, 拖延 of human control. 
       This uncertainty is central to the difficulty of tackleing對付, 對付 the problem. Since the costs of climate change are unknown, the benefits of trying to do anything to prevent阻止，妨礙 it are, by definition解釋, 定義,unclear.
What’s more, if they accrue at all, they will do so at some point in the future. So is it really worth using public resources now to avert避免, 防止 an uncertain, distant遙遠 risk, especially when the cash could be spent instead on goods and services that would have a measurable near-term benefit?
        If the risk is big enough, yes. Governments do it all the time. They spend a small slice of tax revenue on keeping standing army陸上作戰部隊；陸軍部隊, 團體；隊伍 not because they think their countries are in imminent臨近的，即將發生 danger of invasion入侵，侵略 but because, if it happened, the consequence（常指不好或不利的）結果  could be catastrophe大災難  Individuals do so, too.
They spend a little of their incomes on household insurance not because they think their homes are likely to be torch手電筒, 火炬 next week but because, if it happened, the results would be disastrous極其糟糕.  Similarly同樣地；相似地, a growing body of scientific evidence suggests that the risk of a climatic catastrophe大災難；大災禍 is high enough for the world to spend a small proportion of its income trying to prevent one from happening. 
7
0