The Philippines, in the path of typhoons year in and year out, knows what calamities are about, but like the intense rain dropping on flood-prone Texas recently, we were not prepared for “Ondoy” that swept through town and submerged houses, killing many.

But just the same, the aftermath of tropical storm “Barry” came littered with mud and recrimination. Some blamed President Donald Trump’s radical cuts into the budgets, which include those of the National Weather Service and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Others said such a huge volume of rain could not have been natural, therefore, the cloud seeding company Rainmaker Technology Corp. may have been responsible. The latter is easy enough to disprove, certainly scientific data could, and that is exactly what the company did.

In an interview, CEO Augustus Doricko said Rainmaker “did not operate in the affected area on the 3rd or 4th or contribute to the floods that occurred over the region.” It “had last seeded clouds on 2 July, more than 24 hours before the storm that caused the flooding.” Moreover, it denied that the seeding had been done right above the areas with the intense rainfall, as some social media posts alleged.

The images were jarring in the aftermath — twisted metal, fallen logs and branches, broken walls and even a trailer truck caught in the branches of a tree along the banks of the Guadalupe River. Over 100 have been reported dead in Texas Hill County, and rescue and search groups are still out looking for the missing as of this writing.

It was precisely these images that may have triggered a deeper look into the Trump approach to achieving a healthier financial outlook for America. Proposed cuts to the budget of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have, in particular, drawn much ire, as it would leave the agency with practically no budget for climate research. A wire report says the proposal would “entirely defund NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), the agency’s primary hub for climate science coordination and research.”

That’s not all: even “NOAA’s weather laboratories, as well as research into tornadoes and severe storms,” will be removed if the proposal passes.

Trump’s chilly regard for climate change is no secret. His first term (2017-2021) was marked by the US pullout from the Paris Agreement. There are many misgivings about what his presidency would mean for the climate issue, and that said the budget proposal is a clear indication — that is, if his first executive orders that practically “unraveled” former President Joe Biden’s policies were not enough to convince anyone.

What bothers many, and not just the tree-huggers who have pushed the buttons of many a global leader, is that the planet is not going to bend over backward to please egos bigger than Earth.

The world is definitely heating up. These “malfunctions,” as one may probably describe these weather quirks lately, are signs that the rising temperatures are affecting weather patterns which, in turn, will affect the migration of animals and then the food supply.

In other words, if global leaders do not support the call for a collective effort to address climate change, then we can only expect the “unusual” to keep happening or even worsen — intense rainfall that flood towns in minutes, abnormal heat in places that were often cooler in temperature, diseases increasing, and prices skyrocketing.

Hereabouts, our government takes pride in its “multifaceted approach” to disasters, involving national and local authorities and even private groups. But, as the shock and awe that hit the people in that Texas county should remind us: beyond public awareness, reliable warning systems, quick response, and advanced evacuation planning — a major line of defense is everyone’s deep understanding of how to cope with, and in, a dying planet.