I disagree. Lets say I told you your house has a VERY high risk of severe flooding. If you then say "I dont have an opinion on the risk of my house flooding" it essentially implies that you don't think my prediction is credible. If I were an expert on flooding, and had studied flood risk in your area, it would be very telling if you ignored my prediction!
These judicial nominations are built around a form of doublespeak. Given that she is trying to say as little as humanly possible, it is functionally impossible to take her comments at face value. Just like when she pretends to not have opinions about the ACA or Roe, when she has made explicit comments in the past that contradict this. Given that we know she is deciectful, we need to infer her true positions through that lens.
Obviously it is impossible to truly detect what she feels in her heart, but given the circumstances, the fact she didnt defer to scientists, and the fact she is recieved her nomination from a pro-coal, pro-fracking climate change denier, makes it pretty clear where she stands in my opinion.