Authors have utilized the social representation theory to describe climate change sense. Title is informative and addresses the issue that is important. Abstract clearly describes the aims of the study. References of the articles are up to date and relevant. There is one issue with the abstract. It gives no information about sample method i.e random or purposive. A clear statement describing results of the study is also missing in the abstract.

Authors have started introduction with the idea that concept of climate change is vague, and that is why, it is tough for the audience to understand the climate change. Environmental and political view of the people influence their sense of climate change. Usually climate change risk perception is linked to non-environmental issues. Hence, authors have clearly outlined need of study and have clearly discussed the known etiology and epistemology of climate change. Authors have based their study on social representation theory and it is well articulated in the article.

Authors have used word association task to understand the climate change sense of public. However, process of subject selection only describes the geographical distribution of sample and time frame of sampling. Sampling method is not well elaborated in the article. The authors have elaborated well the process of data cleaning before analyses. There is no information about validation and reliability of the used instrument.

Data has been reported appropriately. The graphs have been used to elaborate the words associated with the meanings of climate change. Reported graphs report climate change risk perception in total sample. A comparison is missing. No data output describes the differences in the climate change perceptions of scientists and non-scientists. Figure 3 is there for this purpose but it is too complex and make little sense. Words in it are blur. However, figure 4 for this purpose is making sense and that is enough to understand the differences.

In discussion section authors have supported the obtained iconography of the climate change with the support of literature review. They have described well the conceptual framework of climate change. Authors have concluded that public make sense of climate change on the bases of its impact. However, authors have not reported the limitations of the study in conclusion. Ethical considerations are also missing in article.

Overall this is good contribution to understand the concept of climate change in public.