The point of research in public agencies like the EPA is that they should be politically neutral and report the data and facts as they are, not the opinion of the Government. Unless the data has legal (IP) issues or their are security concerns, there is no valid reason for the Government to prevent them from speaking on it. The follow up decisions and policies are for the administration of the day. 

The only reason it's on the political agenda is because of vested interests make politicians put it on the political agenda to hide and misinform the public as to the evidence available. The bolded suggests they're at least somewhat successful if you even need to make that statement. 

This man knows no shame and has no class. He is an embarrassment to America and all that it represents.

The bolded is there because I think most climate "deniers" (I guess maybe not most, but for sure myself) don't doubt global warming over the last 100 years. It has happened. Fact.

What I dislike, however, is the EPA saying on their website humans are a major cause of this, and then making people scared about CO2 emissions. I have seen far far too many stats/graphs, that quite frankly, show CO2 doesn't have much, if any impact on global warming. I have seen some good documentaries that also showed the effect of CO2 is pretty minimal at most. Even this doesn't mean it isn't human caused, as we emit more than just CO2, and said documentaries often expose those more detrimental items. But the moment the EPA puts all of their focus on CO2, I lose faith in their ability to report a non biased statement.

It is also very frustrating that they will utilize current temperature data for a single year (or even a few years) to justify global warming. Current weather has WAY more factors than just CO2 driving it (la nina/el nino cycles, sun, numerous other ocean cycles), and quite frankly, individual years should NOT be utilized to justify the problem we have with global warming.
But this is exactly what people do. They will broadcast that this year was the warmest on record, and then they have to add in that this is a result of us humans. That last part of the statement makes it political.

Democracy. The USA voted for this remember.

Best bet is to vote appropriately next election and overturn this kind of damage.

What are you classifying as social media sites?

Because as far as I know they are the kind of facebook where people aren't even capable of reading a common article.

Well, current global warming is related to humans and data is not only related to one year.

What makes it political is that it affects us all and for the most part people that neither work to global warming nor can do much against it by themselves.

And about cheap, 'clean' coal and srtuff like that, official EU study: Modern and 'clean coal generates cost in the european health system between 14 and 43 billion € per year. And between 2.3 and 6.4 billion in Germany per year.

That is only one factor of many from mining damage to air pollution.

Now, CO² has many indirect side effects, like oceans getting more sour very fast which is a big issue for everything with carbonate structures (corals, mussels...) which makes it a major issue for everything waterrelated which again makes it an issue for humans.

So even if carbon dioxide had no effect on the climate (it has, question is how much it really is) there would be many reasons for getting away from coal and oil.

I swear I read "corals, museums" and was "how the fuck"

But they did take those aspects into consideration. It's ok to be sceptical, but you also need to ask the same question to climate deniers. Do they have political agenda?

Yep, although Trump didn't win the popular vote; 10's of millions still voted for him