Text 10
Do you remember all those years when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure？That the evidence was inconclusive，the science uncertain？That the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way？Lots of Americans bought that nonsense，and over three decades，some 10 million smokers went to early graves.
There are upsetting parallels today，as scientists in one wave after another try to awaken us to the growing threat of global warming.The latest was a panel from the National Academy of Sciences，enlisted by the White House，to tell us that the Earth’s atmosphere is definitely warming and that the problem is largely man-made.The clear message is that we should get moving to protect ourselves.The president of the National Academy，Bruce Alberts，added this key point in the preface to the panel’s report“Science never has all the answers.But science does provide us with the best available guide to the future，and it is critical that our nation and the world base important policies on the best judgments that science can provide concerning the future consequences of present actions.”
Just as on smoking，voices now come from many quarters insisting that the science about global warming is incomplete，that it’s OK to keep pouring fumes into the air until we know for sure.This is a dangerous game：by the time 100 percent of the evidence is in，it may be too late.With the risks obvious and growing，a prudent people would take out an insurance policy now.
Fortunately，the White House is starting to pay attention.But it’s obvious that a majority of the president’s advisers still don’t take global warming seriously.Instead of a plan of action，they continue to press for more research—a classic case of“paralysis by analysis”.
To serve as responsible stewards of the planet，we must press forward on deeper atmospheric and oceanic research but research alone is inadequate.If the Administration won’t take the legislative initiative，Congress should help to begin fashioning conservation measures.A bill by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia，which would offer financial incentives for private industry，is a promising start.Many see that the country is getting ready to build lots of new power plants to meet our energy needs.If we are ever going to protect the atmosphere，it is crucial that those new plants be environmentally sound.
重点词汇：
inconclusive 非结论性的，不确定的（adj.）
lobby 门厅，接待室（n.）
antismoking 禁止吸烟（n.）
nonsense 胡说，废话（n.）
grave 墓穴，坟墓（n.）
panel 面板；座谈小组；全体陪审员（n.）
definitely 明确地；肯定地（adv.）
parallel 类似的事物；平行线（n.）
pour 倾泻，涌出；倒（v.）
fume [浓烈或难闻的]烟，气味；愤怒，生气（n./v.）
prudent 审慎的，谨慎的（adj.）
paralysis 瘫痪（n.）
steward 管家，管事；服务员，乘务员（n.）
legislative 立法的（adj.）
initiative 主动的行动；首创精神（n.）
crucial 至关重要的，决定性的（adj.）(https://www.daowen.com)
negligence 疏忽（n.）
aggravate 使恶化，加重（v.）
难句解析：
①The latest was a panel from the National Academy of Sciences，enlisted by the White House，to tell us that the Earth’s atmosphere is definitely warming and that the problem is largely man-made.
【结构分析】主干部分是The latest was a panel，表语panel后接有两个定语成分：from介词短语和enlisted过去分词短语，意思为“白宫召集的、来自国家科学院的专家团”。不定式结构to tell us
表目的，即“为了告诉我们……”。
【句子翻译】最近的行动是由白宫召集了一批来自国家科学院的专家团，他们告诉我们，地球气候毫无疑问正在变暖，而这个问题主要是人为造成的。
②But science does provide us with the best available guide to the future，and it is critical that our nation and the world base important policies on the best judgments that science can provide concerning the future consequences of present actions.
【结构分析】该句的主干是由and连接的两个并列句，前一个分句的主干是science does provide us with guide；后一个分句的主干是it is critical，其中it为形式主语，真正的主语是that引导的主语从句。从句的主干是our nation and the world base policies on judgments，judgments后接两个定语结构，一个是that引导的定语从句，另一个是concerning分词结构。
【句子翻译】但是科学确实为我们的未来提供了最好的指导，关键是我们的国家和整个世界在做重要决策时，应该以科学能够提供的关于人类现在的行为对未来影响的最好判断为依据。
③Just as on smoking，voices now come from many quarters insisting that the science about global warming is incomplete，that it’s OK to keep pouring fumes into the air until we know for sure。
【结构分析】该句的主干是voices now come from many quarters，句首Just as结构做比较状语，意为“正如……一样”。insisting引导的分词结构做定语修饰主语voices，分词结构中含有两个并列的由that引导的宾语从句，第二个宾语从句的真正主语是不定式结构to keep
。
【句子翻译】就像吸烟问题一样，来自不同领域的声音坚持认为有关全球变暖的科学资料还不完整，在我们确定全球变暖之前还是可以继续将浓烟排放到空气中的。
④Do you remember all those years when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted that we didn’t know for sure？That the evidence was inconclusive，the science uncertain？That the antismoking lobby was out to destroy our way of life and the government should stay out of the way？
【结构分析】这里有三个问句，第一个问句的主干是Do you remember all those years
，后面的when引导定语从句修饰前面的名词years，定语从句由but连接的两个句子组成；第二个问句和第三个问句句首的that都引导一个宾语从句，承接第一个问句，that前省略了主句Do you remember all those years when scientists argued that smoking would kill us but the doubters insisted；the science uncertain承前省略了was。
【理解难点】通过结构分析我们知道这几个句子都是围绕第一个问句的主干部分展开的并列疑问句，因此我们在阅读中应弄清楚句子的层次，逐一分析。
⑤Instead of a plan of action，they continue to press for more research—a classic case of“paralysis by analysis”.
【结构分析】Instead of表示否定；破折号后面的部分不是修饰前面的名词research，而是说明前面的整个句子。paralysis by analysis的意思是“分析导致瘫痪”，就是无休止地研究一件事，致使最终没有任何行动。
全文翻译：
还记得科学家们认为吸烟会致人死亡，而那些怀疑者们却坚持认为我们无法对此得出定论的时候吗？还记得怀疑者们坚持认为缺乏决定性的证据，科学也不确定的时候吗？还记得怀疑者们坚持认为反对吸烟的游说是为了毁掉我们的生活方式，而政府应该置身事外的时候吗？许多美国人相信了这些胡言乱语，在三十多年里，差不多有一千万烟民早早地进了坟墓。
现在出现了与吸烟类似的令人感到难过的事情。科学家们前仆后继，试图使我们意识到全球气候变暖所带来的日益严重的威胁。最近的行动是由白宫召集了一批来自国家科学院的专家团，他们告诉我们，地球气候毫无疑问正在变暖，而这个问题主要是人为造成的。明确的信息是我们应该立刻着手保护自己。国家科学院院长布鲁斯·艾伯茨在专家团报告的前言中加上了这一重要观点：“科学解答不了所有问题。但是科学确实为我们的未来提供了最好的指导，关键是我们的国家和整个世界在做重要决策时，应该以科学能够提供的关于人类现在的行为对未来影响的最好判断为依据。”
就像吸烟问题一样，来自不同领域的声音坚持认为有关全球变暖的科学资料还不完整。在我们证实这件事之前可以向大气中不断地排放气体。这是一个危险的游戏：到了有百分之百的证据的时候，可能就太晚了。随着风险越来越明显，并且不断增加，一个谨慎的民族现在应该准备一份保单了。
幸运的是，白宫开始关注这件事了。但是显然大多数总统顾问并没有认真看待全球气候变暖这个问题。他们没有出台行动计划，相反只是继续迫切要求进行更多的研究——这是一个经典的“分析导致瘫痪”的案例。
为了成为地球上有责任心的一员，我们必须积极推进对于大气和海洋的深入研究。但仅有研究是不够的。如果政府不争取立法上的主动权，国会就应该帮助政府开始采取保护措施。西弗吉尼亚民主党议员罗伯特·伯德提出一项议案，建议从经济上激励私企，就是一个良好的开端。许多人看到这个国家正准备修建许多新的发电厂，以满足我们的能源需求。如果我们准备保护大气，关键要让这些新发电厂对环境无害。