There is no such thing as global warming, attested to by the fact that its proponents felt the need midstream to change the term to "climate change", thus having a bet both ways, and surreptitiously affecting the perception of the unlearned, for the weather is always changing from year to year and day to day. In employing the term "climate change", the unlearned and fearful are sucked in to overly focussing on every oddity of weather and thus to falsely concluding that man is changing the earth's weather.

It will be eventually enshrined in history as the biggest scam ever perpetrated.

The motive for the lie is ultimately universal control: it is difficult to rule the world under one banner when countries are at extreme ends of the poverty/wealth pole. The target therefore is to establish the 'level playing field', and the way to do this is to emburden the rich countries with additional costs, red tape, and constraints such as emmission controls: they need to be slowed down while the others catch up.

The prime evidence against global warming/climate change is right before our very eyes. That is, if no-one had ever mentioned the term, no-one would ever think the world's weather was changing: the campaign simply utilises the age-old tried and proven "power of suggestion".
The weather is the same as it always has been, and no puny contribution to the atmosphere from mankind will change this any more than one can pull himself off the ground by his own bootstraps.

The global warming idea is puerile: the sillyness of beings who are becoming increasingly darkened in their minds by virtue of their atheistic 'we're-standing-alone-in-the-universe' philosophy.

>do we reinstate the fuel reduction measures that worked so successfully from 1944 to 1983 or do we try a new approach?<
Why not try the oldest approach? Prior to Aboriginal occupation 40 000 or so years ago, Gwondanaland was 40% rainforest. When burning began, this type of forestation couldn't cope and the understory, that of the eaucalyptus, wattle and other species, became dominant, thus creating a problem - they needed constant burning to keep some semblance of control in the near environment. Reaforestation with trees that have leaves not filled with flammable oils might help. CSIRO did some research into this some years ago, but it appears to have been buried, probably for political reasons. Perhaps if more funding for research was given, perhaps the early research could be tested for veracity. If found to be correct, then surely major redevelopment of our forests that create such holocausts each year could be addressed.

Artic dog - you left out the role of the 2 tonne "lawnmowers" that existed prior to human arrival. The megafauna helped keep fuel levels in check. Also as the climate gradually changed, eucalypts started to dominate as rainforests retracted under the influence of increasing fires. The aborigines, after killing off these large natural "lawnmowers", saw the power of wildfires that exploded onto the scene as fuel levels increased unchecked. They harnessed that power by taking control and using fire to manipulate the environment to suit their needs.

Tragedy - I don't know of any 2 tonne 'lawnmowers' however I do know that three types of huge wombats began their path to extinction 40 000years ago. The largest may have been 2 tonnes. One of these, a particularly well-engineered but grumpy bloke may have been killed off because of his savageness. It is thought that our grumpy little common wombat is his descendant. I don't know whether they were here in large numbers but it is certain that they, amongst many other creatures, are no longer in existence. No doubt the bigger blokes played a good part in clearing undergrowth, and hence fuel, from the forest floors. But I don't think extinction is an event that exists only in Australia. Perhaps there were other reasons for their demise. Who can tell? What I do know is that if some of the larger animals were allowed back in to national parks, forests, etc, the fuel load could be kept down. Not terribly politically correct though, is it?