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?

New ideas would be created and tested

Explanation:

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.

In science, old ideas are usually improved or modified and not entirely discarded. The old ideas form the basis for new ideas after extensive reviews. Differences in the interpretations made by scientists on any particular phenomenon give rooms for reviews. The reviews often generate new ideas or hypotheses and these can be tested using relevant experimental procedures according to the scientific method.

Hence, the correct answer would be that new ideas would be created and tested.

because u need two or more forms of the same element that contain equal numbers of protons but different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei to form isotopes.

so since they all have the same shape? i mean maybe because m& m and reeses are both chocolates