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.

You really don't understand how state funded science works.

Unless it's DARPA or some other defense spending or a private entity owns the IP for the data, then you have every right to know (up to you if you're happy with giving up that right). Public research thrives on being an open platform and even private companies will present their findings at major conferences and spread the word on social media although not all the proprietary details (at least until a patent is filed). Having a robust social media policy is not the same as a complete gag order.

You completely missed the point, which is why I don't argue about this with people.

When reports come in that 2016 was the hottest on record yet again, this is then utilized as a scare tactic for global warming. One individual year.

I'm not saying CO2 has no impact. I'm saying I think there are other factors at play that have substantially more impact. The reason I say that really comes down to the 1930's through the 1970's, when global temps stayed virtually flat. If one matches that with CO2, they will notice there was no flattening or decrease during that time frame. In fact, CO2 continued to increase. Like I stated above, I am not in any way saying I disagree that CO2 has any effect. I'm disagreeing (denying if you will) that it has nearly the impact scientists continue spouting, as I think there are other major factors at work that make a much larger difference.

So you are confusing research boycote/censorship with social media use to divulgue it? Yep, not a overreach.

Nope, they are more inefficent because public servers don't hold themselves to a commitment to be profitable, so they accept a lot of pratices that no sane company would.

And democracy in several ways can be seem as the dictatorship of the majority, and that majority very often may be very wrong. At the time Einstein made his discoveries probably 99,99999999% of people would say he was wrong and in a democracy he would have been overuled.

Except it did rise slowly like the carbon emission. Don't forget that before the seventies the world population was roughly half of what it is today. Records for millions of years have shown that temperature follows carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Thank god for the oxigen isotopes on the south pole. You can make a conclusion on climate change over a period of 30 years and the last 30 years have shown a rapid growth in mean temperature on a global scale. Considering the sun isn't heating up and the UN, EU, China and even American research has proven a direct link between greenhouse emissions  (CO2 being the largest by far) and mean global temperature there isn't any other big factor at hand. The north and south pole don't move very fast these days. The atmosphere isn't changing significantly other than himans polluting the living shit out of it. Neither is the sun or the core of the earth heating up.

But so inform me which other and bigger factors are at play. 

Temp and C02 since industrial revolution

https://www.google.nl/search?q=does+co2+follow+temperature&client=ms-android-tmobile-nl&prmd=sinv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOzMPJseDRAhUqIcAKHZdxA5wQ_AUICCgC&biw=360&bih=559#tbm=isch&q=co2+and+temperature+graph&imgrc=nTfsGEnCU9FqPM%3A

Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn etc. There are a lot of different people on these sites. 

They each have individuals and groups dedicated to the pursuit of science and discussion of different fields.

On facebook alone there are groups of scientists dedicated to Bioinformatics for Next Gen Sequencing, Biochemical Engineering, there's even a group dedicated to the CRISPR/Cas-9 enzyme. Some of the more popular or mainstream ones would include Brian Cox, Carin Bondar or I Fucking Love Science (IFLS). All the major companies involved in science research also have their own dedicated pages. 

On Twitter these sames scientists tweet about their work or comment on the latest advances. 

LinkedIn is a bit more obvious as it's a professional networking site but you get the idea. 

Of course they should be able to announce findings via social media.

And it should be a given that public departments shouldn't aim to make a profit but rather use the taxpayer money in such a way that cost are kept low putting a lesser demand on taxes.

And no, a democracy can never be a dictatorship since they are each others opposites. Oppression can occur by the masses towards minorities but that has nothing to do with dictatorship. You must separate forms of governing with structures in society.

I see no statistical rise in temperatures on that graph from the 30s into the 70s.

Me saying there are other factors doesn't imply I know the factors. I'm not in any way expertly knowledgeable on the subject. It implies I can see that graph very clearly showing for 40 years, SOMETHING clearly had a much larger impact than CO2 on the temp.