Academia, Environment, International

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. A couple of days ago on another topic thread I attempted to post a youtube visual presentation of the number of climate change scientist deniers vs the general scientific body. It was compelling in a humorous way. I assume it never posted due to the use of the mother of all banned words. Too bad. If you’re interested in watching, it was on HBOs ‘Last Week Tonight with John Oliver’ but available on youtube.

  2. Karen S wrote “If you take a non-Liberal-sanctioned point of view, they are unable to calmly and reasonably discuss the pros and cons of each side”

    This is only half correct.

    Liberals use insults such as racist, Islamophobe, and homophobe, with the last word being used with the most venom. However, conservatives use insults such as un-American, un-patriotic, Marxist, commie, and socialist. I have been called all of these terms depending upon the argument. And I assure you, both sides use generic insults much worse than “foolish.”

    You do not see this because you are fairly consistently conservative, but for those of us who have views in the middle, we see hate from all sides.

  4. Perhaps, Kim Jong Un…. will be outside, when an unanticipated ‘Lightening Storm’ arrives…… ;-D

  6. This encapsulates the problem with any debate with Liberals.

    If you take a non-Liberal-sanctioned point of view, they are unable to calmly and reasonably discuss the pros and cons of each side. They immediately demonize their opponents and come up with catchy slogans and names like “deniers.”

    Every time. Every issue.

    Watch any media outlet, read any newspaper. If you call your opponent racist or foolish, you wriggle out of debating the issues.

  7. So . . . so much for the universal scientific consensus on ACC (Anthropomorphic Climate Change.)

  8. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/2/

    “NIPCC: “Terrestrial ecosystems have thrived throughout the world as a result of warming temperatures and rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Empirical data pertaining to numerous animal species, including amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, reptiles, and mammals, indicate global warming and its myriad ecological effects tend to foster the expansion and proliferation of animal habitats, ranges, and populations, or otherwise have no observable impacts one way or the other. Multiple lines of evidence indicate animal species are adapting, and in some cases evolving, to cope with climate change of the modern era.”

    “NIPCC: “A modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events. More lives are saved by global warming via the amelioration of cold-related deaths than those lost under excessive heat. Global warming will have a negligible influence on human morbidity and the spread of infectious diseases, a phenomenon observed in virtually all parts of the world.”

    Many climate scientists say they “believe in man-made global warming” even though their own research contradicts key points in the arguments advanced in support of that hypothesis. They say this because they believe the IPCC is telling the truth about findings outside their areas of expertise. Ditto influential science journals such as Nature and Science, which claim to speak on behalf of “climate science.”

    How credible are the NIPCC reports? Endorsements by prominent scientists, reviews, and citations in peer-reviewed journals appear at the Web site mentioned above. NIPCC reports are produced by scores of scientists from around the world (some 20 countries so far), cite thousands of peer-reviewed studies, and are themselves peer-reviewed.”

  9. Conflict of interest in the most recent AR5 report:

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/03/21/conflict-of-interest-in-the-ipccs-new-chapter-7/

    “But here’s where the conflict-of-interest comes in. Challinor, while serving as a guest editor for the March 2013 edition of the Agricultural and Forest Meteorology journal, decided that 20 research papers deserved to be published. Via this act of publication, these papers gained “peer-reviewed scientific literature” status.
    As a lead author of the IPCC’s Chapter 7, Challlinor then decided that nine of these 20 papers were crucial to Chapter 7′s conclusions. In other words, the person passing judgment on the merits of these papers was not independent. He had an agenda. He was an IPCC lead author who wished to cite these papers in his IPCC chapter.
    But it gets better. Challinor is himself the co-author of three of these 20 papers (see here, here, and here). So first he writes three papers. Then, wearing his journal editor hat, he decides that all three of them are worthy of publication in the very same edition of a peer-reviewed journal. Then, wearing his IPCC lead author hat, he arranges for two of his own works to be cited in the IPCC’s Chapter 7.”

  11. Oh, don’t forget that it’s racist to believe the IPCC’s own report.

    For anyone who doesn’t know, the International Panel on Climate Change is the source of climate change data.

  12. I’m sorry, but I’m finding this so hilarious.

    I’ve posted actual excerpts from the AR5 report released by the IPCC.

    And NO ONE has discussed the ACTUAL data. Just posted cute Tweets, and op-ed blogs, and hurray for science!

  14. Hahaha! According to the David Suzuki link, the IPCC would qualify as “climate change deniers!”

    The IPCC’s own data shows they have no understanding for why the Antarctic sea ice has been increasing, that the previous AR4’s report that drought was caused by ACC was over stated, that all their computer models have been wrong, and that there has been a 15 year hiatus with no explanation.

    That is from the IPCC itself!

    But, thank goodness we have bloggers and catchy phrases like “deniers”.

  15. You guys are wasting your time trying to argue with paid trolls. The only effective defense against such creatures who insist on sitting beside you on the park bench and dribbling nonsense is…..

    Sharpies!

    1. Chuck – does the APA know that you are advocating violence?

  16. Personally, I do not call losing original data and mistakenly assuming that testing stations remained stationary “scientific integrity.”

  19. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/359688/new-york-times-op-ed-it-was-mistake-believe-hockey-stick-rich-lowry

    Berkley Professor of Physics Richard Muller, states that the problem with the Hockey Stick graph is that it completely ignores large fluctuations in temperature. It has artificially smoothed out temperatures. His concern is that when we continue to see large fluctuations in temperature, it will seem to contradict the Hockey Graph, and climate change will be abandoned.

    So, even scientists who support the theory of anthropomorphic climate change have a problem with the Hockey Stick graph.

Comments are closed.