The description of the project: An attempt to explain the current period of warming without considering human contributions sounds like a repeat of the Koch brothers funded project "Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature" (BEST).

I'll let the founder of BEST, Richard Muller, summarize their findings:
"Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."
Richard Muller

Maybe what you've described happens in places like Cuba (maybe), but it's pretty unlikely to happen in first world democracies with national healthcare systems.
It sounds to me like someone once told you a story that reeks of BS and you were gullible enough to fall for it because it fits with your ideological narrative.

I should explain what I mean a little more clearly:
I live in a country with a single-payer healthcare system. I'm pretty sure that even if a whole hospital consumed its entire year's budget before the end of the year that the provincial government would just take out a loan to cover the unexpected uptick in services required. Studies would be performed (after the fact) to determine why the actual cost didn't match the budget.
I'm pretty sure that if anyone was denied medical service "because the money has run out" that the provincial government (or, at least the opposition parties) would howl for an official inquiry.

It would be a lot easier to believe you if you provided examples of this happening.

Where has that ever happened? Name the country and, for bonus points, cite examples of where people were denied services "because the money has run out".

Sure, but the other side of that coin is that Chris Roberts retains full creative control over the project.
No focus groups or market testing to ensure that the game will be as profitable as possible (and, as a side effect, water down the game).

Similarly, with movies, I can't think of an example of a movie where I liked the theatrical release better than the director's cut.

I have Ubuntu as a host OS and I run Windows XP in a VirtualBox to play old games like "Planescape: Torment" or "Fallout: Tactics" (nothing fancy).

It's funny you should say that. There was a comment earlier in the this thread about how Creationists, when presented with more evidence of Evolution, just move the goal posts and say "now there's two more gaps in the 'just a theory' of Evolution!"... My thought was: "Huh. Just like Global Climate Change 'skeptics'."
Ever notice the similarity? I have.

What solution to the problem of human contributions to Global Climate Change has MightyMartian advocated that "requires fascism to be implemented"?

If you think that the way the critics are treated is bad?
Climate scientists have to deal with harassing lawsuits from Republican attorney generals (a climate change "skeptic") and baseless accusations of fraud from "skeptics". Makes me think the "skeptics" aren't really as honest, independent, nor sincere, as they claim to be. Every day "skeptics" accuse Climate scientists of being in some shadowy international conspiracy.

The point is that we're not making snap judgements about "non-problems".
We're talking about reducing human contributions to the problem of Global Climate Change (the most obvious way being reducing emissions of green house gasses). Based on your comment it seems that you've never really attempted to familiarize yourself with the even the most basic information about climate change.
A good place to get started is: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/

You could say the same thing about any branch of scientific study.
Why bother studying distant stars when we could be curing HIV or cancer!
Why bother studying life when we could be putting people on Mars!
Why bother studying rocks when we could be developing artificial intelligence!

Understanding how the climate of the planet we live on behaves and changes seems like a very important thing to know.

That's weird. On climate change topics I'm always being told that you can assume governments exaggerate bad news.
How can it be that governments, simultaneously, exaggerate and understate bad news?