Pretty clear statement of the consensus. Almost any scientist would say almost exactly the same things in response to those questions. In fact, if they said anything substantially different, I would be concerned about their competence to discuss climate at all.
But I wonder about public education stuff at the end.
How should science be handled in public school curricula? This really boils down to how the policy sector can be made scientifically competent. The problem, after all, is not opposition to “science” but a misjudgment of what stuff constitutes established science, what stuff is debatable, what stuff is speculative, and what stuff constitutes flagrant BS. NCSE seems to me to brush aside the question of mechanism.
I think the closest Peter comes to an answer here is the Thomas Jefferson attribution. Scientific literacy should be pervasive in the public and core to the government. Science is not a specialist niche. It is the knowledge that is required to be proportionate to the immense power of modern civilization. It just can’t be optional anymore.
UPDATE: Related issues discussed by Katherine Stewart.