They choose 13 questions that could literally be about anything in science, or in other words, could be about anything in the world, but one out of the 13 questions has to be an opportunity for the public to confirm that they-believe-that-scientists-believe CO2 is especially relevant to warming. It's not really scientific to believe in conclusions about the results of an ongoing descriptive experiment with no control condition, whether the average scientist believes in such a conclusion or not. Being a scientist doesn't make the scientist's words credible or even scientific. A scientist is only a scientist when it is following the methodology. There is nothing false about that question or its answer, and contributions of CO2 to global temperatures aren't any more easily disproven as they are proven, but science, for the purpose of reaching a conclusion in pursuit of theories or laws, is supposed to be a deductive process, and if they are gauging our knowledge of science, they should be gauging our tendency to remember and apply deductions made using the scientific method, and not merely gauging our capacity to "believe in" a politically charged logical induction made by scientists with a financial conflict of interest whilst acting outside of the scientific method. They seek to assess our knowledge of science, but instead, they demonstrate and sort of confirm our compliance with a duality in our use of the word. It is an impartial process of discovering and conveying facts. When scientists apply the certainty of a deduction to the probable nature of a set of inductions, science becomes dogmatic, where the inductive science can undermine the reliability that we should only associate with deductive science. When humans need to design a rocket, they depend on a mountain of facts derived deductively, but if humans just seek to control the behavior of other humans, then it's good enough to propagate the results of logical inductions and elevate their credibility by applying the word science!