Mea Culpa

In today's essay, I find myself in the unfortunate and embarrassing position of having to apologize to my (few) readers. I have done you a disservice. I am guilty of the very act that I took Josh Wolf to task for in an earlier essay, namely, that I posted and opined on a subject without presenting all of the facts. It is humbling and shameful when you realize that you are the pot that calls the kettle black. I have no excuse save laziness, and for that, I sincerely apologize.

In my previous post about the "Great Global Warming Swindle", I professed loudly and proudly that the documentary dispelled myths about man-made climate change, but after some more research, I have discovered that many of the scientists featured in the documentary have come forward to say that they were taken out of context, and, literally, duped into appearing in the film. In addition, there are charges of outright lying, lying by omission, and tampering with the data used in the film to ensure that it projects the results desired. You can read just a few of the refutations here, here, and here. In a nutshell, all of these links offer compelling evidence that the documentary filmmakers are guilty of the very thing they accuse the global warming movement of, and, perhaps worse.

I'm no scientist (which should be obvious), but it seems to me that the scientific method of analyzing raw data should produce the same results no matter who examines it. That is to say, scientists like to try and equate the method to "just the facts", much like, say, algebra. With all knowns and all variables in place, there can be only one correct answer. How is it, then, that different groups come up with different answers? And more importantly, whom are we, the non-scientists, to believe?

In any case, we should be able to believe those who claim to show all sides of the story and let us decide for ourselves which side to believe. Throughout history, it has been shown that scientists have often manipulated (or ignored) data to substantiate their theories, with raging debates to follow. This is a good thing, in a way, because it ultimately forces the truth to come out. In the case of writers (or bloggers), however, it is vital to present ALL facets of a story to stimulate and inform the reader.

Again, I was guilty of a knee-jerk reaction, and blurted about a topic I did not bother to research. I don't believe this is the same as purposely lying or leaving information out, but the end result is equally detrimental. If I had done my homework, I would never have touted the documentary the way I did. I still think it's interesting, and as I mentioned, it should be debated so we can eventually come to a consensus on how our presence affects our planet. But for me to believe that we humans have not had a negative impact on the ecology of this planet was a lazy, selfish mistake. In the future, few readers, I will do my best to make sure I know what I'm talking about before I shoot my mouth (keyboard) off. Please accept my apology.