教学设计结合表2材料，根据该教师课堂教学实录，就“讲授新课”环节简要设计符合小学生特

It seems impossible to have an honest conversation about global warming. I say this after diligently perusing the British government’s huge report released last week by Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank and now a high civil servant. The report is a masterpiece of misleading public relations. It foresees dire consequences if global warming isn’t curbed: a worldwide depression and flooding of many coastal cities. Meanwhile, the costs of minimizing these awful outcomes are small: only 1 percent of world economic output in 2050.

No sane person could fail to conclude that we should conquer global warming instantly, if not sooner. Who could disagree Well, me. Stem’s headlined conclusions are intellectual fictions. They’re essentially fabrications to justify an aggressive anti-global-warming agenda. The danger of that is that we’d end up with the worst of both worlds: a program that harms the economy without much cutting of greenhouse gases.

Let me throw some messy realities onto Stern’s tidy picture. In the global-warming debate, there’s a big gap between public rhetoric and public behavior. Greenhouse emissions continue to rise despite many earnest pledges to control them. Just last week, the United Nations reported that of the 41 countries it monitors (not including most developing nations), 34 had increased greenhouse emissions from 2000 to 2004. These include most countries committed to reducing emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.

Why is this In rich democracies, policies that might curb greenhouse gases require politicians and the public to act in exceptionally "enlightened" ways. They have to accept "pain" now for benefits that won’t materialize for decades, probably after they’re dead. And even if rich countries cut emissions, it won’t make much difference unless poor countries do likewise and so far, they’ve refused because that might jeopardize their economic growth and poverty-reduction efforts.

The notion that there’s only a modest tension between suppressing greenhouse gases and sustaining economic growth is highly dubious. Stern arrives at his trivial costs—that 1 percent of world GDP in 2050—by essentially assuming them. His estimates presume that, with proper policies, technological improvements will automatically reconcile declining emissions with adequate economic growth. This is a heroic leap. To check warming, Stern wants annual emissions 25 percent below current levels by 2050. The IEA projects that economic growth by 2050 would more than double emissions. At present, we can’t bridge that gap.

The other great distortion in Stern’s report involves global warming’s effects. No one knows what these might be, because we don’t know how much warming might occur, when, where, or how easily people might adapt. Stern’s horrific specter distills many of the most terrifying guesses, including some imagined for the 22nd century, and implies they’re imminent. The idea is to scare people while reassuring them that policies to avert calamity, if started now, would be fairly easy and inexpensive.

The author agrees with Stern that（）

A. global warming is something to fight with

B. curbing global warming will not affect economy

C. an aggressive anti-global-warming agenda is necessary

D. not much cost will be involved in conquering global warming

采用工程量清单计价法进行招标时，招标控制价应在招标文件中公布。（）

“钟摆族”是指工作在城市中，生活在郊区或其他城市，两处奔波的职场人士；“潮汐车道”是指根据交通流量的变化，通过交通指示标识，对其行驶方向进行适时调整的车道。我国河北、新疆、北京、江苏等多个省份已经开辟了“潮汐车道”。读潮汐车道景观图，回答下列小题。

小题1:关于我国“钟摆族”的说法，最可信的是  

A．郊区的就业机会逐渐增多是其产生的重要原因

B．“钟摆族”可以缓解城市交通压力

C．产生的原因之一是大城市房价高

D．通过建卫星城可使城市“钟摆族”现象消失小题2:关于“潮汐车道”的说法，不正确的是 

A．可以有效缓解交通拥堵状况

B．通过增加道路面积优化配置道路资源

C．图中左侧汽车向郊区行驶

D．0-18:00时进城方向的车道数增加

关于细菌性 * * 炎临床诊断标准的叙述，错误的是

A． * * 分泌物稀薄均匀

B．分泌物pH＞4.5

C．胺试验阴性

D．湿片检出线索细胞

E．分泌物有恶臭

调节通道的时间常数越小，则控制作用的影响越和缓，调节过程变得很缓慢；反之时间常数过打．调节过程变化较激烈，容易振荫，所以调节通道的时间常数过大或过小，在控制上都不利。