"yah, but suggest this is what they are doing to the so-called "climate science" and watch peoples heads explode..." - CG
There is a marked difference between:
1 - Altering a graph or simplifying tables of data whilst keeping the original explanation intact so that people who aren't trained to understand raw data can appreciate a visual representation of scientific work.
2 - Altering a graph or simplifying tables of data in order to give an explanation that goes contrary to the accepted findings by scientists for political (or otherwise) purposes.
You should trust the experts because they are, experts... If you want to learn about the reasons behind their assertions you will need to train in the relevant field to appreciate the raw data.
16 years ago I said to someone on a forum that there was no evidence for either evolution or creation. I was a creationist at that time. I was challenged on this and was given a long list of evidences for evolution. Fortunately I decided to honestly take a good long look at what was on offer and that was the start of my education (formal and informal) in the sciences. Imagine what you can learn in 16 years and then consider my thoughts when I see someone writing nonsense that would take minutes to educate themselves on, if they cared enough. Of course it takes a while to learn how to get educated; yes I'm being serious about that... Just saying...