It is gratifying to see the manuscript improved on the basis of three positive and constructive reviews, and having gone through the text am satisfied that those comments ahve been taken into consideration and the paper is ready for publication, with one important caveat...

The authors note that they are surprised with the inverted communication pyramid of Stewart & Nield (2013). That is because their depiction of it is fundamentally different from the one that was presented in that paper. I would urge them also to consult (and cite) the original diagram (Somerville, R.C.J. & Hassol, S.J. 2011. Communicating the science of climate change. Physics Today, October, 48-53) so that they are clear about the message that diagram is intended to convey. That message is that the scientific method trains scientists to begin with outlining the general academic context and then work through to some narrow research finding, which they then proceed to communicate. The starting point for the public, on the other hand, is the sharp question of 'so what?', and addressing that successfully can take them deeper into the academic detail and wider context.

I appreciate that this is a very specific point, but I think the authors would agree it is an impotant one to clarify.