Y'know, it's as if anytime a scientist adjusts data, y'all seem to think that he's making crap up as he goes along, that his motives must be mercenary and nefarious.
Has it ever occurred to y'all that maybe, just maybe scientific research very rarely settles on one set of data, on one set of laws or rules or equations? For instance, we
know that general and special relativity are real - indeed,
if we didn't allow for relativistic effects on satellites, our cell phones would be a lot less functional! But even with that, relativity is NOT considered a scientific fact - it's considered a theory since it hasn't been proven to the standards that are accepted by the scientific community.
Same thing goes with gravity - we deal with it every day, we feel it in our bones and muscles, but gravity is "only" theoretical in the eyes of physicists - it hasn't been proven to their standards of what's considered "proof".
What's more, both relativity and gravity are the subjects of ongoing experiments today and have been since the theories were first proposed - that's the way science works.
Given the fact that neither gravity nor relativity are considered unproven theories, and that both are the subjects of ongoing experiments where physicists will use their findings to "adjust" the data already collected over the past several generations, exactly how can one expect that the scientific community would go outside, collect the available data on the atmosphere and climate, collate the data and construct their theories, and then call it a day and not continue to study it year-in and year-out as they do gravity and relativity? The very idea that scientists would not continue their research is ludicrous! Why? As the level of technology and education available to climate scientists increases year-by-year, they find new data that was not available before...and so they have to study the new data and see how it fits with what was already documented...and sometimes the new data disproves the old data, and sometimes scientists find that this or that very small factor that they have just identified will change a significant amount of the data already collected over the years.
What's more, scientists never - repeat,
never - agree in all details of a major field of study. In every field of study, you'll find scientists disagreeing - sometimes viciously - over this or that detail or theory. So when it comes to sea level rise, you ARE going to find different estimates - some greater, some lesser - but nearly the entire climatology community (except for the relatively very few deniers, several of whom are paid in some way by Big Oil) agrees that the sea level will rise significantly. What's more, they themselves will tell you that their estimates will change over time as better data becomes available concerning glacial flow, calving, and melt; geological factors (like the Karst topography in Florida (which negates any hope of a great seawall, btw)); the effectiveness of humanity's efforts to decrease the emission of greenhouse gases; the degree of deforestation and the growth of "heat islands" that result from urbanization; and much more.
For instance, just last month,
phys.org printed a study showing that there is substantial indication that climate change
may increase volcanic activity - which idea seems silly, of course, until one reads that the data apparently show that when a (naturally very, very heavy) glacier melts, there is less pressure on the crust beneath, and so allows magma to flow more easily. Yeah, that does make sense...and it's actually good news in a way, since explosive volcanic eruptions can cool the planet somewhat. Of course, if it's a supervolcano (like Yellowstone) that blows, well, that's not good...but it's nothing to worry about. For now.
So...yeah, scientists DO adjust their data - they MUST do so, for to fail to do so when new data becomes available would be scientific malpractice. It's not a grand conspiracy, not a nefarious scheme to spread socialism...but simply scientists doing their jobs to the best of their ability.
