Alas, that's mostly a fraud as well.  Until I actually buckled down and started to actually studied things about a year ago I felt about the same as you seem to, but I never took a stand until I got around to doing so.  It is perfectly logical that liberating many million years worth of sequestered carbon in several hundred could cause a lot of problems.  When one actually looks at and analyzes the numbers it is actually pretty far-fetched.

A vastly more plausible explanation is that (what is currently being called) 'climate change' is a cash cow for many parties and a way to promote ''social justice' for others, and a way to assert control over citizens for a hierarchical ring above the more mundane of the adherents.

Edit:  I might also add that over the past several decades we have had models based on theories about how CO2 can effect the atmosphere.  And we have observations.  The models have proven badly wrong.  In science, when a hypothesis and observation don't match, the hypothesis needs to be rejected or at least significantly altered.  Yes, models can be incorrectly implemented and so on, but it's getting pretty bad by this point.  My hypothesis about the 'socio-economic' causes is holding up well as the climate 'scientists' and politicians circle the wagons and put their heads in the sand.

An alternate theory which is (currently) rather unknown (and extraordinarily unpopular by those who are aware of it) is that global temps drive atmospheric CO2 concentrations rather than the other way around.