It is like Hans Christian Andersen's story The Emperor's New Clothes, only uneducated people believe in climate change.

I read part of the article. It refers to a study in the "Nature Climate Change" journal.
A subsidiary of the Macmillan publishing company. The only thing available regarding the actual study referred to in the "article" is a brief summary and a summary of the summary ( they call supplementary information) here:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/extref/nclimate1547-s1.pdf

its a pdf. The actual study is not available for free. To read it it will cost you 35 dollars, that is unless you have access to a university library.
The study summary does not specify the actual survey size of the people they "surveyed" to get their info. They just say "large". That brings into question the validity of the study. How many people did they survey, and where? Without that information their stats mean nothing, and the study does not carry any validity, period. End of story. For all we know, they could have done a survey of 50 or 100 people in their home state. That would be totally invalid. They also limited the age group. That is totally invalid if they are talking about people, in general.
Ok, so here we have the pot calling the kettle black. This article supposedly showing the fickleness of climate change "belief" , actually has the same shortcomings that all the "climate change deniers" point out in the climate change studies - vagueness, statistical errors, and assumptions, and data missing. How absurd can one get?

We all sit around and argue about what is causing the fire, while we watch it burn, "believing" we have no valid facts, even though we see it burning. . . the climate, that is.

Maybe the research shows that worry itself stems from ignorance. I dont believe "high literacy" people are more disbelievers of climate change (or consider it a less important issue) than people will "low literacy" but it seems plausible that people with scientific interests and activities can see what people are doing against climate change and are therefore less worried.

Well, this looks a bit unreliable...

I for one consider myself to have high scientific literacy (compared to the majority of people I interact with), and I am very aware of the dangers that come with climate change.

My skepticism and opinions on climate change are not based on science alone; not when there's enough information to suggest ulterior motives among those involved. Such as one of the earliest proponents on this subject, Maurice Strong, who commissioned a U.N. report back in the 70's that eventually led to the formation of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), for which Strong led in the first four years; while also being Secretary General for the 1972 U.N. Conference on the Human Environment, and then later Secretary General for the 1992 Earth Summit. His roles have been instrumental in the globalization of the Environmental Movement.

To fully appreciate Strong's involvement in the Climate Change debate is to look at his whole career, beginning as a Canadian entrepreneur, most notably in the Oil Industry, and in the Alberta Oil patch. Throughout his early career he made a name for himself in energy and utility businesses and was appointed to Executive Vice President and then President of the Power Corporation of Canada.

After Strong's U.N. work, he returned to Canada and became head of Ontario Hydro and CEO of Petro Canada. Which is rather odd if your vested interests were in protecting the Environment. Although Strong earned many awards and accolades, he may be most proud of the fortune he's amassed. He began as an investment analyst at the age of 19, and has made many successful investments over his career. Since his U.N. work beginning in the 70's, Crude Oil Prices have skyrocketed from less than $20 a barrel, perhaps in large part to his influence working with the U.N.

Strong's entrepreneurial side is also not limited to Oil, or in Canadian businesses. In the late 70's Strong made an acquisition of 200,000 acres of Colorado land from a Saudi arms dealer because the land was over one of the continent's largest fresh water aquifers. Strong had plans to pipeline the water to the southwest U.S. desert region but protests stopped this plan. He then settled with the water company for 1.2 million and still retains the rights to the water. Perhaps that motivated the launch of the American Water Development in the mid-80's; a corporation which he controlled and used to file applications to Colorado Courts to pump that same underground water. The project again was opposed, primarily for the alleged affects to other water rights, and for the significant environmental damage it would cause to a nearby wetland and other ecosystems.

There are in my opinion, many deep pockets and individuals who can directly or indirectly benefit from both sides of the Environmental and Climate Change debates. The drive on either side isn't in the name of science, or in protecting Earth. It has much more to do with the all mighty buck, and if you follow its trail, you'll see the truth.

I believe that the information presented in your link itself is insufficient to draw any intelligent conclusion. There are no quantitative results, merely vague descriptions and polemical interpretations. The "conclusions" reported are painted whole-cloth with no actual support in the writeup itself.

The link within that writeup, to the Nature article, is no better. As Kiteman points out, it is statistically absurd to infer a "trend" of any kind from just two points.

What is more, the data as presented (with uncertainties shown) is entirely consistent with no trend at all. The authors' conclusions seems to be based more on their own opinions, and not on the actual results of their "study." It is impossible for anyone to say whether those conclusions are true or false.

They somehow only have "high" and "low" scientific literacy.

You cannot identify a pattern from a graph with only two points.