Scientists from different fields are trying to understand how the global climate is reacting to the changes caused in nature, and by human activities. They have come up with conflicting interpretations. Which of these is the most likely outcome of differences in interpretations made by scientists on the issue of global climate? All old ideas would be discarded. Scientific evidence would be weakened. Scientists would look for new evidence. The limitations of science would be evident.

Scientists would look for new evidence.

Step-by-step explanation:

Anytime scientists have different interpretations, they carry out more experments to look for new evidence. But this is after they must have tested their own hypothesis. If non of these are possible, they set out to get fresh evidences. Having different opinions would make them come up with new ideas with hope that their theories are valid. And it would also make them carry out more experiments for confirmation or for denial.

did you get the answer yet?

step-by-step explanation:

hi how are you doing today? if you ever need just tell me

step-by-step explanation: