The authors of this study clearly think this is a problem:
On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones. More importantly, greater scientific literacy and numeracy were associated with greater cultural polarization...
Dispelling this... we argue, should be understood as the central aim of the science of science communication.
People who know about science are less likely to think global warming is a "serious threat" — so the goal of science communication should be to change their minds. (After all, "science" is a community of people holding opinions, not a process, and "science" should pursue specific political objectives, right?)
Could it be that it's reasonable not to see "global warming" as a "serious threat"? Of course not. The authors are are tapped into objective reality itself — and are free from any kind of bias — so they know that's a completely wrong position.