Generally speaking, I agree with a lot of things you describe in this comment. At the moment I avoid going into too much detail, so here are thee additional comments from my point of view:

1. I think what we have seen in past two or three decades is just the beginning. The main question is how will the climate be in another 30 - 50 years, if the carbon dioxide emissions keep on their current level or higher. As, indeed, at the current stage of the climate change, it might seem as somewhat modest and nothing to worry about. So, the question is the future.

2. Overall, it might also be that the local effects of climate change in Finland turn out to be more on the plus side - longer growing season, and less energy spent on heating in the mild winters. But, to me, this seems a bit like a person living in the top level of a block of flats, then saying "ah, a fire has broken out in the basement? Luckily it doesn't concern me, on the contrary I can just enjoy my flat being warmed by the fire!". I mean, we do live in a global world, our modern lifestyle depends a lot on global production and transportation of goods. Also, with all the modern means of transportation, people can mass migrate over the globe if their homes get destroyed. So, if a heavily populated area somewhere else is heavily affected, then all of us will be affected - either directly or indirectly. So, even if I had 100% accurate scientific data showing that my local climate will be more favourable, I'd still stand against the climate change, as I'd guess major political and economical disturbances elsewhere would have ill effects here, too.

3. Well, as much as I can read and follow the science news and discussion, to me it seems rather dubious that government funding would have seriously biased the majority of climate science. On the contrary, there are verified cases of some scientists taking a lot of money from big oil companies, and trying to produce scientific reports denying the climate change. (EDIT: and later on some of those deniers have had to admit that they were wrong - the sheer amount of data of rising temperatures just makes it that hard to try to deny it happening.) As, it is the big oil companies who profit from the old system, and they are afraid of a major shift in means of energy production. So, if we are speaking about science being biased by big money, here it is mostly the climate change deniers who are into that business. No, that doesn't mean that all the other climate change scientist is 100% honest with nothing to criticize. But that is how science works - it is essential the everybody doesn't agree. Then the disputes are to be settled by means of strictly controlled experiments and observations, to collect unbiased data to support either this or that hypothesis. And at the moment, the vast majority of data heavily supports the central theories of climate change being boosted by us humans burning fossil fuels.

---

Lastly, the way you describe EPA being used to advance political and economical goals of one group of people, against other group of people - I think that is a perfect real-life example of ways to sow distrust and to escalate "tribal conflicts". A lot of that kind of stuff is happening here, too. A lot of legislation and regulations make life harder for small-scale enterpreneurs and family-scale farmers, giving the advantage to the big companies. I certainly don't like that, and I suspect that there is some big money games being played behind the scenes. But, from my point of view, this is not to be confused with climate change as an empirical phenomenon. (Even if I didn't like the tribe of gearheads, rationally speaking I should admit that some of their observations and ideas might actually work.)