Good news: the Federal Way School Board just lifted its moratorium on An Inconvenient Truth.

Unfortunately, coverage in the Seattle Times, the largest paper in the region, was disappointing. It mostly treats the decision as a simple controversy without ever explaining that there is, in fact, only one right answer about the reality of human-induced climate change.

To paraphrase my earlier rantings: this is not a matter of personal opinion for lay people; it’s a matter of scientific consensus. And when an article fails to acknowledge that overwhelming consensus, it misleads readers.

For an example of what I mean, here’s the penultimate paragraph:

Grist thanks its sponsors. Become one.

Board members have said they hope this controversy will start a healthy debate about global warming.

What could this mean?

I’m feeling charitable today, so I’ll assume that the board is hoping that students will pursue post-graduate education in atmospheric science and go on to debate global warming in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Or maybe the board members are hoping that the controversy will start a debate over how to adapt to global warming and how to reduce climate changing emissions.

Because if the board means pretty much anything else, it’s clear that they still don’t get it. And it would be nice for media coverage to point that out.

Grist thanks its sponsors. Become one.

Reader support helps sustain our work. Donate today to keep our climate news free.