Science is not a vote, it's an outlook, an attitude, a discipline and (mostly) It's a method. No scientist worth his salt should ever use the words "settled" especially if voting or "consensus" produce it rather than the scientific method. There are words for the sort of (public or corporate) funded scientific studies and organisations that are better suited to that sort of thing.
Those words are "Politics" and "Commercial" and if that does not jump right out at you then I don't know what will. Each of the above has its place of course, but if you think it through, it turns out the implications are far further reaching than it seems on face value. I think that those aspects are affecting the personalities as well, especially those appointed under the nebulous title of "public understanding of science" are either taking a diengenuous approach on this topic or are perhaps a little politically naive.
Fortunately I've come across this little gem, a research article from Peter Stallinga and Igor Khmelinskii that looks into the issue in a disciplined fashion and I'm posting it here as a basis for a new angle I'm going to explore in future when I address "Climate Change"
https://origincache-prn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/30653953_1237089103092032_879322905211568128_n.pdf/Stallinga_MCMA2014.pdf?oh=de5abf7159016475742c358d147a2765&oe=5B9DD562&dl=1