Is there any value to applying scientific literacy to your understanding of what climatologists are saying?
Is there any value to having a scientifically literate public in general?
If scientific literacy has no value, then I suppose these findings are irrelevant.
The mathematical tools used in climatology are quite different from those used say in genetics. What a scientific education brings is a good understanding of the scientific method(s) used in their general 'field' of study, eg natural sciences, social sciences, etc. ,+ an overview of which science studies what within that field, + the history of scientific discovery in this broad field, + respect and trust in the above. So they know something more re. sciences that are related to their specialty than lay people, yes, but next to nothing about other sciences that are less immediately connected.
Scientific literacy brings the same advantages as above, most importantly a degree of interest and curiosity towards sciences, which is IMO a good thing.
In the example of climate change, any chemist/physicist can tell you that the basic idea that CO2 traps heat more than O2 is validated by experience in his field, and can describe approximately the evidence for CC and the procedures at play to collect, validate and interpret it. But the biggest difference with John Doe out there is that they tend to trust science and think of their fellow scientists as good, smart guys, not as liars or fools.
In short, the philosophical attitude towards science is what's determinant, whether you trust it or not.