Can you name a single person on your staff that doesn't believe the standard AGW line? Are they frustrated by your type of coverage?
As for how we teach the scientific method in middle school, I think we've done you a great disservice by failing to emphasize the importance of falsifiability in coming up with a hypothesis. That should be the
most emphasized point of science education.
Karl Popper wrote about it incredibly well (although perhaps it needs to be simplified for middle school): http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
The fact of the matter is that even astrology asks a question, makes a hypothesis/prediction, gathers data, and analyzes it - but it's obviously
not science. Understanding the importance of falsifiability is what allows us to clearly discern the difference between science and pseudo-science.
So maybe the real problem isn't about the debate over climate science, the real problem is that people pushing the AGW line in the media don't really understand the scientific method well enough.
Do you think that the town square is a good place for debating whether or not the scientific method requires falsifiability? :)
Good luck with the afghan elections and the scotus ruling prep!