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.
new ideas would be created and tested.
the limitations of science would be evident.

New ideas would be created and tested.  

Explanation:

When scientists have conflicting interpretations of something, the best thing to do is to start scientific experiments to confirm or deny the different hypotheses about it. The possible point of this is that from the conflicting ideas between a group of scientists and from the different experiments new ideas will be formed and tested that will allow the establishment of a concrete and accurate conclusion on a certain subject, in which case the differences will form a conclusion about how the global climate is causing changes in nature.

true, i don't really know what you're asking but from the info you provided im guessing the answer is true.

the answer to your question is slate