leicsmac

Well, yes. Blame the "other side". Blame China. And if those don't work, give a nod and a wink, say that "God" acts in "mysterious ways" and ask for "thoughts and prayers". Place the blame everywhere but where it really belongs - the very short term self interested ethos that people like Trump personify. The same ethos that disregards any measure that might make life better for the future or anyone else because it might disadvantage them, even slightly, in the present. Standard, really.

FTFY.

Well, there will be plenty of time, opportunity - and justification - to do that about a lot of things over the next four years and beyond tbf.

Yeah, fair. And that cost is only going to keep going up.

Pretty much everything right there, Singhy. The only thing I'll add is that IMO some daft bastards have to think of the long game, for the sake of every bugger else.

Agreed. And if you ignore the root causes of them becoming more intense and widespread in the first place, all the means in the world might not save you. It's like the flooding in the UK now - there are a combination of reasons behind it, but if you don't account for the way the Earth is changing, then you're (wilfully or not) missing a critical piece of the puzzle and that has a cost, often a heavy one. Which will only get even heavier in the future. "This isn't about climate change..." It really is. That and mismanagement of resources. (Sorry for the direct callout there Otis, but I was asked directly and I'll say here and now you're hardly the only person in here to express such an opinion on the topic, so it is not my intent to single you out.)

On previous page but I'll repeat here - NHS, immigration policy (important to a lot of people, clearly), foreign policy (how much does Modi buy off us?) and environmental policy, to name a few.

You would hope that everyone with a brain does view it like that, yes. Unfortunately there seem to be quite a few people, including those and enough with the power to craft policy that then affects us all, that appear to not have a brain on that subject. And that is a problem. And in my own defence, outside the dedicated thread for the matter I'm reasonably sure that the majority of my posts on it have been reactive to people attempting to downplay it as a problem (as above), rather than proactively shifting the discussion myself. There are issues like that one, the NHS, immigration and foreign policy that all matter - though I guess someone might make a reasonable argument that they often come back to economics anyway because they all rely in some way on the exchequer. I can't disagree with the viewpoint in the second paragraph, but as I've said before, I'm willing to offer time to this government to get things right given the situation and I think it a mite unreasonable (and in some cases a double standard) to not do so.

... clearly these measures were never necessary on the first place, as the severity of wildfires due to changing global average temperature hasn't changed at all and so existing safeguards should have done the job. .... .... ......... right?

If people are expecting the current government to apply an economic panacea with results double-time after fifteen years without power, then I might suggest their expectations might be just a little high and perhaps indicative of a double standard. A fair chunk of the print media sound the same. As if economics is even the only important issue, or even the most important one, right now anyway.

Certainly there is. House and other infrastructure placement, for one thing. I do however take entirely legitimate issue when it's not mentioned as a part of the equation at all, because that kind of overlooking of a massively important factor is firstly entirely inaccurate, and secondly dangerous, because without accounting for it and mitigating it these events will happen again and again and again - even with the best house placement and drainage systems money can buy and implement.

Remains one of the greatest stories ever told.

That graph up until the present day is based on recorded data, as the article explains. The future information within it is indeed a prediction, based on that previous information. If you want the actual raw data then I'll have a deeper dive, but frankly I'm curious as to why this, along with other information regarding climate change that is easily accessible, would not suffice. Edit: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212094721000372 This article provides similar conclusions based on raw data.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/weather-and-climate-news/2023/new-research-shows-increasing-frequency-of-extreme-rainfall-events There is.

Ah yes, the classic. Though I must point out that the sign is wrong - Trump lacks both depth and warmth.

From what I can tell, both the Scots and Irish locals have some rather choice things to say about the fact that he owns those two courses.

The primary ones that he currently owns or others that he might seek to acquire - Twitter and Tesla, to name two. As per above, I don't see the logic either and whether it's a good business move is entirely subjective, but the fact is that a corollary of his meddling is highly likely to be highly nationalist governments that will attempt to enact ethnostates.

Because they appear to be more keen to do business with him in the first place. The ethnostate part is mostly incidental from his POV - I don't really think the ideology matters to him much - but it is patently obvious that is the horse he is backing from a profit perspective and is highly likely to be the consequence for everyone if his influence is successful. Whether or not that's a good decision from him in terms of personal gain is in the eye of the beholder. Edit: and history shows that the creation of ethnostates through oppression and death is entirely possible, and the attempt has been responsible for some rather large historical atrocities.

There is an agenda, and it is the imposition of nationalist ethnostates across Europe that he can then do business with. He gets the profit, Trump and his followers get their ideological model exported. Of course, those two ideals can clash, as we've seen already.

... and, yet again, that we're getting more water with more intensity over less time in the first place, due to increasing global average temperatures.

... or one possible answer of a suite of them. Others might include energy requirements for long distance spaceflight and sustainable civilisation, and organism lifespan.

I agree. Putting a narcissist like Trump on the spectrum insults all the very many thoroughly decent people on it.

That's incredibly ungrateful and I'm sorry to hear it.

And, once again, this is a problem not only because it's morally abhorrent, but also because it presents a clear and present threat to human civilisational survival. The laws that govern the movement of the universe do not entertain lies and fiction about them. They punish them, and they do it incredibly harshly.

Unfortunately the only good thing about him was his PR team. Anthony Bourdain says it best: "Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands. You will never again be able to open a newspaper and read about that treacherous, prevaricating, murderous scumbag sitting down for a nice chat with Charlie Rose or attending some black-tie affair for a new glossy magazine without choking. Witness what Henry did in Cambodia – the fruits of his genius for statesmanship – and you will never understand why he’s not sitting in the dock at The Hague next to Milošević." Put simply, he was the master of Might Makes Right realpolitik, and nations like the one Bourdain describes above were just collateral damage to him.