There is something missing from your narrative that exercises me. Many GM proponents (Nina Fedoroff is a notable example) have misinformed the debate by conflating climate science and GM technology: if you accept one you must accept the other because a scientific consensus exists.
Your overall results show majority acceptance of GM and acceptance of climate science.
This actually demonstrates that free-market, neoliberal capitalism (that has subsumed both left and right since Thatcher/Reagan) has been more successful in constructing an artificial scientific consensus on the safety of GM technology than it has on the safety of pouring fossil-derived CO2 into the atmosphere, perhaps unsurprisingly.
GM is a product of the 'free-market' ideology of neoliberal capitalism, where the state actively serves the interests of the market, and is actually based on "assumptions" about scientific safety rather than scientific assessment of risk, in order to suit narrow political and economic interests rather than the common good. Under this dominant paradigm, economic growth via new technologies must continue at all costs because the system collapses without it.