Its an open question if this additional energy is significant. The point is that in itself, the temperature increase by CO2 alone is not very big. To create a catastrophe out of this, you need something more - some instability so that the CO2 increase gives additional effects. If one believes the computer models which try to show that such effects appear is already more a question of ideology. What really happens with the climate is, of course, yet another question. Ok, if you really believe such nonsensical catastrophic scenario like extermination this, you are probably beyond the reach of rational argumentation. At least I would not try. So publish it and become a famous climate scientist. Once your private theory is even more catastrophic than the mainstream one, it will be welcomed. So you have good chances. The classical mass media. TV, radio, newspapers. The internet contains, of course, also representations of these mass media, but also a lot of independent stuff. Scientific literature I don't mean when I say "media". It would be more accurate to write "mass media". No. I have not made any own study of the three particular questions you have mentioned. Thus, I cannot say anything about this. Because all three claims are from a domain of "political science" - a scientific domain under the pressure of strong political groups. Thus, to find out the truth, even only about what science really says about these questions, you need a lot of time - you have to study the original scientific literature. There is no cheaper way to reach this result. My private tests have been restricted to different questions. It may be, of course, pure accident that these questions were those which have been presented wrongly in the mass media, and all the other "facts" about climate change are really facts, or the dangers is even underestimated by the mass media. Believe this if you like. I don't. There is no cheap way to find out who is right. Not exactly, but close. Of course, if all the media consistently claim that 2+2=4, this does not make 2+2=4 false (it only raises suspections SCNR). So, there has to be a little bit more. This little bit more is the emotional element. If very different media reports, about very different questions, have all the same emotional message, then one can be certain that all these are lies. Because this is nothing what happens in real life. Real life happens without caring about our emotions. Thus, one should not expect that all what happens in real life will lead to the same emotional response. There may be tendencies - one group of the society may have a greater problem with criminality than another, for example. But these will be tendencies, and if, say, consistently only one group in guilty of crimes, we can be sure that its a lie - even if it may be true that this group has a greater problem with criminality. Similarly climate science. The climate certainly does not care about human emotions. If it changes, some changes will be good, other bad. Some will be good for some people and bad for other people. There may be an overall tendency - warming may be, in general, more harmful than cooling, but I would guess the other direction, cooling more harmful than warming, is more plausible. Ok, part of the overall tendency is that change has always problematic aspects, old investments can no longer be used and become worthless, for example. There are losses related with the necessity of adaptation, even if the change itself may be positive. But, nonetheless, there are many different aspects of climate change, and some of them will be positive. But if we read the mass media, all of them are negative, and usually not simply negative, but catastrophic. So, they are lies. Even if, by simple probability theory, half of the claims said to be negative will be, indeed, negative even if there is no connection between the media and reality at all, and, given that some relation exists, and, moreover, great changes will indeed be always problematic, we can expect that the description of these really negative aspects will be full of lies too, all directed toward exaggeration.