That test does indeed test scientific "literacy", which is a skill that is correlated with scientific judgement. But scientific literacy is concerned with the results of science, not the doing of science. An analogy would be being able to remember and identify the names of characters in classic novels, but not necessarily knowing what the novels "mean".
Understanding global climate change involves the actual doing of science --- the collection, calibration, interpretation of data, the development of theories, and the use of those theories to attempt to model the future. That is all the "doing" of science, and really, it requires a lot of scientifically trained people to do it. To believe the results (the result being that some quite possible futures are very bad indeed), you need to trust those doing the science. One element for developing that trust is an understanding of the methods. But political motivations can cause trust to be withheld, even if mistrust is undeserved.
It is POSSIBLE that everything may be OK, even if we continue to burn fossil fuels, but it is also quite possible that our current course will lead to massive destruction and death.
BTW, I got a perfect score on the test, although I had to guess at a half-dozen of the answers.