The truth. The whole truth. And nothing but the truth.

Far too often the second of those familiar legal oaths gets fudged.

Details presented as factual — whether in a trial, a newspaper, a presidential debate, or any other source of shared information — need to represent that “whole truth” if those of us on the receiving end are to form opinions and pass judgment with any sense of a solid foundation.

Case in point, last week’s controversy after the lead scientist behind a published report on the impact of climate change on wildfire spread said the study purposely did not look at auxiliary factors, such as forest management practices, before submitting the paper to the British journal Nature.

The study “left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published,” said Patrick T. Brown, climate team co-director of the Breakthrough Institute of Berkeley, California.

“I knew that it would detract from the clean narrative centered on the negative impact of climate change,” Brown said, adding that he thought Nature — an authoritative voice on environmental issues since its founding in 1869 — would be less inclined to publish the paper if other factors were considered.

Nature’s editors strongly denied the insinuation of bias in Brown’s statements, while pointing to papers it has published that detail the many factors involved in the growing intensity and spread of wildfires.

Researchers in the study sought to understand the relationship between temperatures and wildfires. They used artificial intelligence to focus on fires exhibiting extreme growth in conditions caused by warming factors exacerbated by human activity.

Temperature, according to the study, is the wildfire variable “most directly related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.”

While Nature conducts an internal review and a review of the study by Brown’s team, the war of words over intention and involvement in this academic mess continues.

For his part, Brown said he had rejected requests from media outlets that he thought wanted to cast doubt on the existence of climate change because, he said, “that’s not an argument I want to make at all.”

Too late.

The longstanding argument over the existence and causes of climate change can’t be put back into Pandora’s Box. Polling last month by the Pew Research Center shows that while 71% of Americans believe to some degree the government should be enacting policies to battle global warming, only 46% believe that human activity was the primary factor behind the mounting evidence that our environment is being adversely affected.

Brown’s mea culpa — if, in fact, it is one — only adds fuel to the fire for those who believe climate change is either a hoax or a trumped-up excuse to push a politically driven “Green agenda.”

For those of us living in the middle of wildfire country, this type of fracas over scientific data — and more importantly the public’s ability or desire to separate the wheat from the chaff — pushes all the wrong buttons.

Anything that pushes the arguments over climate change back to Square One leaves those of us living within it increasingly frustrated with those who would rather influence than inform.

The whole truth.

Brown was wary that Nature wouldn’t have published his team’s paper had it been more inclusive. But that’s not only an allegation the journal denies, it’s a theory he and his team didn’t bother to test.

They say they didn’t intend to mislead — but in the court of public opinion, intent finishes far behind perception.

Another vow, from another profession, applies here as well:

First, do no harm.