Cloudy With A Chance of Executions: Kim Jong Un Warns Meteorologists About “Incorrect Forecasts”

Kim_Jong-il_PortraitWe have all cursed the weather man on occasion but North Korean forecasters are facing a more tangible threat this week. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has turned his menacing eye on meteorologists and warned that there are “many incorrect forecasts.” Since reports state that Kim Jong Un had his wife’s former musical group executed, forecasters are understandably concerned that one unpredicted rain shower could bring lead showers. If Al Roker gets a call with a job offer from Pyongyang he might want to read the fine print.

Kim has of course continued his father’s policy of cutting off his country and virtually starving the population while he lives lavishly as a type of community godhead. There is no indication that he is anything more than a thuggish dolt. However, he went to the state-run Hydro-Meteorological Service to give guidance to the meteorologists that they need to avoid wrong forecasts. The problem is that his government has not only cut itself off from the world but the world’s technology. While spending a good portion of his revenues on weapons and a nuclear program, Kim has left North Korean in the stone age. Forecasters would have probably pointed out that they have been left with the scientific equivalent to a rock and metal rod for predictions, but that would result in a 100% chance of dead weathermen.

With a drought worsening the nation’s lack of food, Kim reportedly visited the site “to learn in detail about meteorological observation and weather forecast.” He is shown giving instructions to the meteorologists from his official state-recognized natural brilliance.

173 thoughts on “Cloudy With A Chance of Executions: Kim Jong Un Warns Meteorologists About “Incorrect Forecasts”

  1. Paulette:

    If you lose a post just ask for help and Darren or Rafferty can fish it out for you.

    Having more than 2 links will get caught in the filter. But I cannot figure out what the other triggers are.

  2. Saucy, I agree w/ you that both liberals and conservatives have there boilerplate labels, but KarenS is not one of those people.

  3. Could someone tell me why the term “denier” is so hateful? It’s not nearly as insulting as calling liberals “cultists”. Or Shiite liberals.

  4. Climate change denyers are pathetic. Yes, there has been BS now and then like 20 years ago with the ‘ozone hole’ scare in Spring, while failing to point out that ozone requires the sun, absent in arctic winters. Give a damn about the planet; its probably the only one you can get a body on. And that’s from an NRA supporter…..

  5. Paulette,
    You are welcome. One of the reasons….no, the MAIN reason I stopped responding to trolls…. um. let me back up here. The onliest reason, is that the trolls are not here to have a discussion, debate or try to learn something new. No. They are here to disrupt the flow of ideas, and to keep repeating the same lame nonsense no matter how many times it is refuted directly. Then they misinterpret, dissemble and misrepresent differing views. Usually with sheer volume of comments that may be only marginally relevant, if relevant at all. Anecdotes from TV shows and uncle Jake when he is semi-sober are passed off as fully equal to a million dollar five year study with high tech Instrumentation. The Gish Gallop school of debate. Provocation and thinly veiled insults and bogus “challenges” are nothing more than mattress filler, with all the intellectual content of Styrofoam. And when they are responded to with ridicule or ignoring, their response is to gloat, lay on a few insults and declare victory.

    And as for the humor challenged, all I have to say is that at my age, I don’t really give a northbound rat”s south end what the APA thinks. Of course, if anyone’s fee-fees were hurt or you think you were in “fear for your life” like the officer who shot the puppy who growled, go ahead and file a complaint. Feel free. Dr. Kathy Nordal can be contacted directly. She was a classmate of mine and now the Executive Director of APA’s Professional Practice Directorate. Knowing Kathy, I have a feeling her response might not meet Dr. Turley’s standard for civility. She has a supply of Sharpies too.

    And Paulette, one lives to be of service. :mrgreen:

    • Chuck – thanks for the delightful explanation of your inability to engage in thoughtful engages. And thanks for letting us know that the APA has its own supply of Sharpies. This could be the reason the are so unsuccessful treating the mentally ill who then go on murder sprees. Do you think if we took the Sharpies away you guys could actually successfully treat someone?

  6. “Climate change denyers are pathetic.” Weird. I can’t imagine why anyone would believe such phrases were a barrier to adult discussion. Even the term “denier” carries a Flat Earth connotation.

    I am neither a denier nor a believer in ACC. I cannot draw a conclusion when someone lost much of the original data, wrote a paper on the premise that testing stations were stationary when they were moved, and ignored massive regional fluctuations from global averages in order to smooth out his graph.

    I cannot draw a conclusion one way or the other until scientists put on their big boy pants and start afresh.

    What do you call it when True Believers completely ignore data in the IPCC’s own AR5 report that acknowledges they have no idea why there has been a 15 year hiatus in warming, and that the previous AR4’s claim that drought was caused by ACC was overstated? Because I do not call that rational, investigative thought.

    • Karen – it is important that climate changers NOT be critical thinkers. There is a ‘group think’ that has to be adhered to. The academic fraud going on in climate change and the IPCC is enough that any decent AG should be able to convict.

  7. I am neither on one side nor the other on ACC. I have the problems listed above with how they arrived at their conclusions, and the AR5 report indicates they still do not understand, nor can their computer models predict, climate change. I assumed academia had to follow GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) and GDP (Good Documentation Practice), but apparently not. But if they went back to the drawing board, did things right, and created computer models that were actually accurate, then absolutely throw it on the pile of things to clean up.

    I have a problem with those who have selective reading glasses. They have nothing to say about lost data, or the problems even the AR5 report admitted, or the fact that climate has always changed, the conflicts of interest in the reports, or the fact that there was actually more biodiversity at higher temperatures. They ignore the fact that, since climate changed before the industrial revolution, before people, in fact, there seems to be no way for our species to force the climate to suddenly become fixed at today’s values. They do not provide a reason why today’s climate is suddenly the “right one.”

    If the climate is not already changing, it will in the future, because it always has. Removing carbon emissions (while we continue to pump heavy metals etc) does not remove the need for humankind to be adaptable to a changing world. The climate would change if humans left the Earth. Because it always has.

    Cap and Trade does not reduce carbon emissions; it just taxes industries that by definition emit more carbon.

    What is frustrating to me is that valid pollutants with less cache, like mercury and arsenic, get little attention or funding while Anthropomorphic Climate Change gets the political clout. It even survived a makeover from Global Warming.

    If we focused our efforts on eliminated the clear and present dangers, such as pollutants, deforestation, and that floating island of trash and plastic in the Pacific, we could do real good that improves health today. If we pollute the ocean enough to threaten our dominant phytoplankton and marine algae, that’s affecting our oxygen factory. And many efforts that reduce tailpipe emissions and improve clean energy would also reduce carbon emissions, so win-win.

  8. So, basically no one here will address my valid concerns about the IPCC. But they will call deniers “pathetic.”

    Got it.

    Typical Liberal “debate.” Demonize your opponent and then do anything but actually discuss the pertinent issues.

Comments are closed.