In this study the authors have investigated how the role of the scientist (arbiter versus advocate) as well as illustration (photo versus bar chart) used influences the perception of the reader. I find this study to be interesting and well-presented. Apart form one potential typological error (is the sentence on lines 254-255 cut short?), I found the study to be carefully prepared and clear. However, I do have some critical comments.

The type of the text used in the study plays a critical role. Here, the focus is mainly on asking individuals to manage their gardens differently, hence focusing on the responsibility of the individual. Would the reception of the respondents have been different if the text would have not been mainly focused on action that takes place on their yards, but calling for e.g. parking lots to be partially greened or city planning to include more green space when building new housing? Also, the last sentence of the arbiter text can be questioned, if it was a good choice. The (imaginary) professor is offering a recommendation (although a very light one) beyond their field, which might reduce credibility. For sure this does not discredit the whole study, but I do find that the comparison would have been better without the last sentence, in order to answer the research question posed here.

Unless I misunderstand the analysis, I think the point about polarisation (line 345) requires some more nuance in the discussion. There are many reasons why people who are not concerned about climate issues might feel the need or desire to discredit a scientist who more actively promotes action. Unless I am misinterpreting, the authors suggest causality, and I do not think this is necessarily the case. Rather, the response is or at least can be fully reactionary to the theme.

Furthermore, and this applies to all of the results, I would recommend also some discussions on the longer-term effects. After the immediate — potentially emotional — reaction to the different texts, their impacts may be different long-term, through e.g. sensitisation to similar points made in later-encountered texts.

Related to the above point about long-term effects, I would also welcome some discussion on complementarity of the different approaches to science communication. For instance, what would happen if a very profound and (seemingly) neutral text, with some infographics on facts (arbiter) would be provided first, followed by the more personal call to action? How would this influence the perception of the public? The value of different approaches is also recognised in Pielke’s book on the honest broker (p. 7). I think this point of view would enrich the discussion.

The study examined whether advocacy in climate change texts affects how the public perceives the credibility of the scientist authoring them, comparing two roles: Science Arbiter (neutral) and Issue Advocate (advocating). It presents some interesting findings - with the key finding being that advocacy doesn't undermine the scientific credibility of the text and scientist. There are some areas in which this paper can be improved, my main concern is method section. All results presented in the section should be moved to the results sections. As it stand the data analysis section is not well structure. Removing results from this section would give room to cleary explain how the Measures in 3.5 where adapted to suite this study and answer the hypothesis of the study. 

My specific points are as follows

• Abstract L10- The opening statement would benefit with an expansion of why climate scientists rephrain from advocacy
• Introduction L26- examples of consequences would give a clearer picture to the reader. 
• There are a lot typos than need addressing
• Section 2, L100 - It will important to reference other Geoscience studies which critically looked at the effects of visuals and effects of colours when lobying (e.g. Williams et al 2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-111-2023). Also prior experience also influences how the individual undertsands the visual. Which is in line to my other comments on the composition of the participants (a table or figure) is required to show education levels of the participants, and this need to clear how this was handled in the data analysis (Sect 3.4) 
• Theory section should be condensed a bit more, there has been a lot of repetition. 
• I would like to see more detailed explanation in section 3.2, with reference to the key figures in the Appendix. This link has been missing throughout the Method section. For example in section 3.3 the authors mention about the excel bar chart I looked for it but couldn't, then i saw it in the appendix. Please make reference where appropriate.