Talk:ManBearPig

Promising

Sounds promising. Seems like it's going to be all about the boys. I wouldn't be surprised if Matt and Trey find a way to sneak in something political though. Orichalcon 06:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds vaguely like a Goonies parody to me. Difficult to see how it could turn political, though if anyone can turn it that way, Trey and Matt can. Bezo 04:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Matt and Trey thought the show has been too political lately and decided to make a more classic south park Nimrod1234 00:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was right. It was all about the boys, but they snuck in the most political thing possible - a politician! Orichalcon 07:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Messages

I take it that this is about Gore's constant warnings of global warming. If not, then I don't know what. Megaplx 10:18, 26 April 2006

Weak

Weak. Superweak episode, man. Mostly pointless. Was this the last episode of this semi-season? --Vivek 02:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I thought this was a big improvement from the Oprah-Towelie one last week. It straddled an enjoyable line between preachy and goofy, and Al Gore's presence in the episode was great, especially during that tantrum he threw as the rescue effort was starting.

Funniest episode in along time. Can't remember the last time I laughed out loud since I saw the pic of manbearpig. Ace ofspade 22:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This episode is just lame and corny, of course someone has to say it's the funniest episode.

Yeah, better than the Towlie-Oprah episode, but that ain't sayin anything. I think lately, they've kinda gone downhill. Cartoon Wars Part II was pretty lame, and Oprah/Towlie was even worse. Plus, they're slipping from their current events relevance. THE HORROR! -Mysekurity ^[m!] 02:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree on the downhill quality of the shows. The moment that Mr. Garrison's Fancy New Vagina showed, I thought to myself that I was watching the shark-jumping moment of South Park... and, well... I still think I'm right. Enh... we'll see. -- randomguy

Alas, every show comes to that point. I'd hoped it would take much longer, but it appears the show's humerous days are numbered. C'mon Matt and Trey! -Mysekurity ^[m!] 03:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This was a great episode. Much better than the previous ep. Finally, minimal current event spoofing and back to the boys doing normal stuff (with crazy things going on around them) - Zone46 02:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Still... it wasn't as funny or as good as the origional stuff. It's just kinda bitter now, and that makes it kinda suck. -Mysekurity ^[m!] 03:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Better than Oprah; I liked the Gore/just wants attention thing. I don't think you can really expect every episode to be as good as the Cartoon Wars were. However, I was made a bit uncomfortable by the rescue efforts and memorial service scenes; they reminded me a little of the mining accidents in W.VA. recently. I don't want to think they chose to joke about that, but they made an episode about Katrina, so it went through my mind.Chesty95 03:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the mining accidents part. They usually allude to some current events story, but it felt a little less current than previous (read: past seasons') allusions. -Mysekurity ^[m!] 03:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

On an interesting note, there's been a mining disaster here in Australia in the last few days where a few people were trapped, so this episode is sort of applicable to us here too. Orichalcon 07:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I liked this one. It won't go down as an all-time classic, but it was still enjoyable. It was better than last week's, and considerably better than most of the shows they produced during season 9. Overall, the show has definitely improved over last year's extremely mediocre season. I really think a lot of the problem here is that people seem to be expecting every episode to be as good as the ones produced during the show's prime period (probably seasons 4-6). Fact is, the show probably won't hit those heights again, but Matt and Trey are still doing a great job producing a quality show, and even in its tenth season, South Park is still hitting levels of cleverness most other shows only dream of.Raymondluxuryacht 18:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you need any evidence that the show is on the decline, try to catch Rainforest_Schmainforest. Same subject, same politics, much funnier. I hope they can turn things around. --Knuckle Bean 22:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree about the "same subject, same politics" aspect. Yes, both shows dealt with environmentalism, but "Rainforest" was an attack on people who jump on bandwagons and support causes without really caring about them just for a cheap chance to feel good about themselves. This episode attacks people who raise a stink about questionable issues solely to direct attention to themselves. The two are not one and the same.Raymondluxuryacht 00:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

weak.. the show implies that Gore doesn't have scientific consenous... Southpark has gone down hill ever since they started attacking global warming. Instead of creatively writing up a good argument to support their views, they are simple, bland and not really that funny. I'm all for making fun of everything, but they just are not that funny any more. I've removed them from my Tivo...

Gore is an idiot and doesn't have scientific consensus. 65.95.42.11 00:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You are of course right, only 100% of environmental researchers agree with him, the oilcompany researchers disagree.

That's only because your definition of an oil company researcher is anyone who disagrees with Al Gore. Read the Wegman report, climate scientists' statistics are all screwed up, learn some real science, not some pop sci brought to you by Al Gore. 67.70.57.232 03:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You dumbass. Gore's movie was just charts and pictures. All of it is researched and verified by the best scientists in the world. How is that pop sci? Oh wait, why am I asking you a question, you are a retard.

While the above statement is commen among many people it is based on ignorance, an over welling consensus of climate scientist agree that the earth is warming and cause is due to an increase C02 attributed to human activity. People or scientist who have suggested other theories have been completely unsuccessful in publishing their theories in scientific journals because alternative theories either lack evidence or are inconsistent with current evidence. I suggest the book, The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery. The Wegman report was chaired by joe barton who lacks credibility and is considered by most as being in the pocket of the oil companies..

Serial or Cereal?

I noticed the article uses the spelling serial instead of cereal, which is what was used for the closed captioning on the episode. The closed captioning is usually derived directly from the actual script used for the show. Anybody else have thoughts on which spelling we should use? --Billdorr 05:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote for "serial" since it's so close in spelling to "serious", and makes the mistake a lot more plausible. And closed captioning is wrong a lot more often than you'd think.Raymondluxuryacht 08:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't have CC on during the show, but "serial" seems more logical, for the reasons given by Raymondluxuryyacht.

I interpreted it as "cereal" the whole time I was watching; seeing "serial" when I came here was a surprise to me. And I'd be inclined to agree with the CC's. I've seen plenty of CC errors too, but this doesn't strike me as such an error. Matt Gies 16:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Another vote for "Serial", seems to make the most sense.

Neither "serial" nor "cereal" has any etymological link to "serious[ly]". Thus neither really makes any sense. That was probably the point. Matt Gies 20:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point Matt. That being said, I vote for "cereal" because it makes the least sense. CStyle 21:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought of "serial" the whole time I was watching. I was the one who changed it to "serial" in the article. It also makes some sense to me within the context of the plot. That being said, heh, I have no clue. Ask the writers? Grandmasterka 04:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We have to come up with a consensus for which to use in the article. Does anyone else have thoughts? -Mysekurity ^[m!] 12:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

One vote for Cereal --Vivek 13:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

One for "Serial", if only because the first three letters are the same as "Serious" Orichalcon 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We can keep making (educated) guesses forever. I say we stick to what CC says for now, until new solid information turns up. If I understood it correctly it was cereal on CC so I 'vote' cereal. --Bahati 15:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote for serial. Seems to make more sense

Nimrod1234 22:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

When I heard it I thought it was "serio"

"I'm so seriel!" This statement is not about global warming or cereal. This goes back to Gore's interview on Opera while running for President. Opera asked what his favorite cereal and he said, "Opera" Which is not a cereal or seriel but a series. So Gore was confused and SouthPark is making serious "seriel" fun of him.

Wow! that may just be it! I would never have known that (possibly because I think Oprah is irritating, but then, so do Trey and Matt).

Actually, some people use the word "serial" to refer to a TV series, hence the confusion. They were likely spoofing this error in the episode, so either spelling could work. I would go with whatever the CC was. Rm999 07:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

SouthParkStudios is using Serial. Bdve 15:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If it is cereal, then does it have anything to do with Bigg Mixx cereal, sold in 1990-1991 and advertised during The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Pasta de Conchos mine disaster

Did anyone find the rescue part of the episode similar to what happened about two months ago in mexico with the Pasta de Conchos mine disaster? el oso 06:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

more like Tom Sawyer, Id say Metao 08:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

disappointing

THANK GOD FOR SOUTHPARK FOR TELLING THE TRUETH, GLOBAL WARMING IS A FLAT OUT LIE WITH NO SCIENTIFIC PROOFS!

satire against global warming when the scientific concesus globally agrees actions should be taken. I expected better than that.

do cite this consensus you speak of.

do I have to? there's a wikipedia article (scientific opinion on climate change)

If you're looking for a serious overview of the science, I would strongly recommend "Global Environmental Change", published by the Royal Society of Chemistry. Most of the book can be downloaded from rsc.org. It's sort of amusing how the phenomenon of global warming "skeptics" is almost entirely restricted to American conservatives who are predisposed against government regulation. --Nasarius 08:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely NO consensus on "global warming". Many scientists argue the planet is cooling, many argue it's warming a bit, but not so much to get particularly excited about. Earth has gone through numerous warming/cooling periods in its history. The planet was hotter a few hundred years ago than it is today. Even if the Kyoto Treaty were signed by all nations, the impact on CO2 emissions would be minimal and not worth the loss in economic growth for poor countries. In fact, most scientists, even pro-panic ones, admit that the impact of global warming is not as horrific as the doomsdayers were crowing about. Sorry, facts are facts. Al Gore is a typical American-liberal politician who jumps on sketchy "causes" to win power for himself.

The above opinion is thoroughly misinformed, and probably results from either ignorance or listening to industry lobbyists and (right-wing) politicians instead of well-regarded scientists with expertise in climatology. The well-established scientific consensus is discussed in scientific opinion on climate change. Rotiro 05:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How is Chimpy McBushitlerburton causing global warming on Mars??

They've done a number of Global Warming satires over the seasons, notably Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow, and a good number of others, which I'm at a memory loss for now. -Mysekurity ^[m!] 19:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be Smug Alert!. I do not think episode spoofs global warming, just Gore's approach to it.

ye, that's a good point. maybe this one was part of their paranoid habit to balance everything they show with the exact opposite.

I dunno... (I wasn't thinking of Smug Alert!), but I think they were satirizing not only Gore and his approach but also by equating Global Warming with a Manbearpig, clearly non-existant. I agree with the dude right above me in that the guys seem to have some strange desire to piss off as many people as possible (a.k.a. present both sides of the facts, which I guess works...), but end up just covering their own asses...-Mysekurity ^[m!] 04:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was great. Missing kids (or other catastrophes) was symbolic of global warming. But manbearpig was Al Gore's attempt to blame it on man. Trying to stop manbearpig, and the random harmful or silly solutions that did nothing to save the children is what was being mocked. I don't think it said anything about global warming being true or not but creating manbearpig just to destroy it was a parody of the strawman argument that a lot of global warming has become. Create the demon, then slay it and claim yourself the hero. Classic strawman mockery.--Tbeatty 01:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Two things: first, even President Bush has admitted in no uncertain terms that global warming is happening. The debate is over. It should've been over years ago but better late than never. Second, it seems to me that the episode was an attack on Gore rather than people who believe in global warming. The only way one can see a satire about global warming itself in this episode is to take Manbearpig as a metaphor for it. I doubt that was the point, it was just a comment about Gore's megalomania and self-love (which I don't agree with but I laughed).--24.190.122.122 22:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree with what seem to be their views towards Global Warming as displayed in previous episodes, that being that it does not exist (though I could be wrong; I personally believe that mankind is at least partially "to blame" for it, in that we have thrown a natural system out of balance to a concerning degree), I found this episode a great mocking of a man who, I believe, desires only to draw attention to himself rather than the cause which he claims to care about.

Wiki featured an article about the Little Ice Age a few months back, which fascinated me: I've seen ice in New York Harbor, but to walk across it as they did back in 1780 astounds me. This 'ice age' ended around 1850, according to the accounts given in the article, which is about a century into the Industrial Revolution. I guess I think that, given the kind of climate changes we have seen in the past due to natural phenomeoa, I would attribute this warming trend to a natural cause --the end of that cool period-- before I would believe that Man, for all his innate stupidity and thoughtlessness, is capable of affecting the entire planet's climate, even if he was intending to do so. I may be wrong, of course; I'm not a scientist, but this is the source of my, and I think many people's, skepticism regarding Gore's claims.

Very disapointed with Southpark.... the global warming debate only exist in the public media. There has been scientific concenous decades ago because the evidence is overwelling.. Southpark is only doing a dis-service by feeding the ignorance..

you are the ignorant one. Lots of scientists are skeptical of global warming theory. 65.95.42.11 00:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

well, no, not to sound childish but your the one who is ignorant.. First define the term global warming theory, the earth is warming due to an increase in C02 which is caused by burning fossil fuels. That debate is long over from a scientific perspective. You will not find a respected scientific organization which will denie either of those points. People who have suggested alternative explanations lack the data needed to be considered a credible theory.

Just be quiet, this is discussion not debate. I agree that global warming is happening on a moderate scale. But at most this episode mainly pokes fun at Al Gore's lack of charisma and behavior... Also sign comments, you look just like the guy that started this thread.--Exander 07:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is not a debate because the debate has been long over regarding the validly of Global Warming. Now we are dealing with a political discussion. But I disagree with your point that this episode maily poked fun at Al Gore, Southpark made a big point that Al Gore ideas were crazy and were out side the scope of reality. I think this was more an attack on global warming than on Al Gore. -- Dan Oct 25 -2006

Title?

Article says ManBearPig, but it's Manbearpig on spstudios.--Bahati 01:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed it myself. http://www.google.com/search?q=manbearpig --Bahati 02:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The thing Gore holds up at about 3 minutes in is "ManBearPig" Cburnett 04:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So a "thing" is now the source for the episode title? Not the official site? --Bahati 16:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And it's still standing! God damn, you people are lazy, but I'm sure as hell not gonna revert it again! Not to mention you didn't bother to take care of all the references: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Manbearpig If you set out to foobar an article, at least do it right...--Bahati 01:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. And you'll excuse me that my interests on WP — quite unlike you — are much more diverse than South Park and I don't read every talk page as often as you do. I didn't fix all the links because I didn't want to do that much work to simply have it reverted without discussion (which is far too common on WP). Judging by your response, I'd guess that I hedged my bets correctly. Cburnett 21:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You're excused. But don't let it happen again. --Bahati 09:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Eat me. Cburnett 02:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL --Bahati 07:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to move it back to Manbearpig. The fact that Al Gore holds up a sign in the episode with one spelling has no bearing on the official spelling of the episode: they may refer to the same thing but be spelled differently. SPstudios is our only verifiable resource. Dylan 03:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

So the episode is not authoritative about...itself? I suppose List of fictional brands in South Park is utter rubbish then?

Quite to the contrary, I consider the episode more authoritative than anything else, especially something directly observable within it. Al Gore named ManBearPig and that's how he spelled it. You don't get more authoritative than that. As far as I know, SP studios is updated by some computer guy (read: not Matt nor Trey) and can easily make a mistake. There was a whole ordeal over the proper spelling of Deus Ex Machina (Lost). The episode shows "ManBearPig" in a completely undeniable form — it's shown EXACTLY the way Matt & Trey intended it. There's no "what ifs" on spelling (never mind it's capitalization we're discussing). Cburnett 21:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's written on a bumper sticker. It can be a fictional artist's rendition. In any case it can only be a possible source for the creature's name. Sure, that's almost the same as the episode title, but not quite. And sure, the "guy" over at SPstudios can make a mistake, but it's the only official source we have and I say we follow it blindly short of them spelling it "Mnbeaarpg". Then we can discuss it and try to correct an obvious mistake. This is just too close to call and assume something else is correct. Have you tried writing to someone over at SPstudios?--Bahati 09:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No and I bet you haven't either.

You'd win that bet. Then again, I'm not the one having a problem with the official spelling. --Bahati 07:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Accepting a secondary source over a primary source as more authoritative is laughable and absurd. There's absolutely no ifs or whats about the spelling in the episode. NONE. ABSOLUTELY NONE. It's irrefutable. It's clear as can be. On the other hand, a website has so many factors to it that it's not worth enumerated or speculating about. Cburnett 02:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The show would be a primary source if the title was a part of opening credits, or any kind of standardized and consistent place. But it's in the middle. You know, where all the other fiction is? --Bahati 07:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Casa Bonita

Regarding "This is the second episode based around a visit to a real-life Colorado location (the first being "Casa Bonita")." what about the episode, Butters' Very Own Episode where Butters is trying to get to Bennegins with his parents. The restauraunt chain is certainly a real life place, I drove past one today for the first time.

The point was to note that those two episodes were based around significant Colorado attractions. Casa Bonita has an almost legendary reputation in the Colorado area, but Bennigans is a non-significant nationwide restaurant chain. It's not notable that Butters and his parents were going to go there.Raymondluxuryacht 20:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget Shakey's! -Mysekurity ^[m!] 20:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom Sawyer

I posted the trivia element about Tom Sawyer while I was still watching it, but there are additional references: the boys escape the cavern and visit their own memorial service; Tom carries Becky in the cave when she is unconscious; the promo photograph showing kids next to the fake treasure shows Tom Sawyer-style hats on the tourists. Did nobody see these parallels but me? -- Rpresser 05:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Its a reach. No good

Nimrod1234 01:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally unbelievable

Not just that you guys have enough time to write an encylopedia entry about a recent South Park episode, but someone bothers to note how "water" is misspelled on Cartman's bottle? Un-be-freaking-lievable. Get some lives, won't you?

It's not nearly as unbelievable as the fact that someone actually would have enough time to COMPLAIN about the people writing an encylopedia entry about a recent South Park episode. Get a life, won't you?Slipzen 15:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That life thing sounds cool, but I'm not compiling it without a makefile. I'll wait until it's in the repository. --24.51.94.14 12:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

kenny's voice

Is it just me or Kenny's voice is a lot easier to understand in this episode??--Sonjaaa 17:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, as the series(in general) goes on, Kenny gets much eaiser to understand... who knows why?

My guess is that the writers are feeling more and more stifled by Kenny's inexpressivity. Matt Gies 18:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Election 2008

AOLNews reported yesterday that sources close to Al Gore say he is considering running again. Maybe this will replace "Ozone-Man" as the new Gore-ridicule term. People on the street can ask him if he's caught manbearpig yet.Chesty95 14:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Spoof

• pretty funny http://www.youtube.com/v/aIPcqlMTQHs 70.48.250.138 08:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

weak..

Deleted the link to dog shit art, as it didn't seem relevant.

Volcano and manbearpig

If anyone here seen the film "Volcano" (the story of the volcano in downtown LA), it'd be nice if someone a bit more eloquent could perhaps come over and lend a hand describing some of the similiarities between this episode and it. --Tony Eberly 12:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Video excerpt

Replaced the video excerpt with a YouTube link, as I think it would be better to not link to a site with porn links if possible. -68.114.154.249 19:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Political Neologism

Citiations have been requested showing that "Manbearpig" is being used as a political neologism. If a Google search is conducted do the message content on many conservative sites, such as Free Republic, it can be seen that "Manbearpig" is very frequently used as a substitute for "global warming" (note it is necessary to search the actual content, rather than doing title searches on the sites in order to find the vast majority if instances. I can not site an official publication that uses the term, but as any search will quickly prove, it is very commonly used. Sometimes "Manbearpig" is also used to describe Al Gore.

ExxonMobil YouTube video scandal

In light of the ExxonMobil YouTube video scandal, we have to ask ourselves-- was this episode possibly bought and paid for by the oil companies? //// Pacific PanDeist * 19:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

To global warmers, everything that questions global warming is paid by oil companies. The more important question is, are all the global warming supporters paid by Al Gore and Greenpeace? 67.70.57.232 03:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, its pretty much been proved that everything that questions global warming is paid by oil companies... even Pat Robertson is now preaching against global warming... and your "important question" makes no sense at all-- I suppose the melting glaciers were really done by Greenpeace with hairdryers to fake effects of global warming? Anyway, say what you want while you still have electricity... but since your in Canada, maybe global warming will work out for you... //// Pacific PanDeist * 04:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

oh ya, i sure would like to see your purported rigorous proof of "everything that questions global warming is paid for by oil companies", oh yes. Oh ya, glacier melting must be because of global warming! oh ya, hurricane katrina must be caused by global warming! oh yes, people getting cancer must be because of global warming! oh ya, earthquake in Indonesia must've been caused by global warming, oh sure; poverty must be caused by global warming! 67.70.57.232 09:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant argument of your!! Obviously, anyone who believes that the millions of tons of burning pollution we shoot into the air every year is bad must believe that global warming causes receding hairlines and failed Hollywood marriages, right? Do you live next to, say, an auto factory? A coal-burning energy plant? Would you want to? You got some of your facts mixed up there-- global warming doesn't cause cancer, but many kinds of pollution do cause cancer, and that is not even a controversy... weather volatility does not cause poverty, but what do you suppose happens when a heat wave (or a super-cold winter) destroys a farmer's crops or knocks out power to thousands of businesses - like what we had for weeks this summer!! Do you think this is what God intends for creation? Or should we tend to our garden? //// Pacific PanDeist * 02:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that EVERYTHING that questions global warming is paid for by some oil company. It may be people too afraid to believe it. 140.159.2.31 00:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Al Gore's Penguin Army video scandal material

The following text, give or take minor changes, has been added and deleted from this article by a number of editors:

ManBearPig is shown above Gore in Al Gore's Penguin Army, a video posted on YouTube and presented as an amateur effort, which was later proved to have been made by DCI Group, a Republican marketing firm tied to ExxonMobil. It is unknown whether the makers of South Park authorized DCI Group to use the image, which appears to suggest an endorsement of the video by the makers of South Park.

It would, of course, be better to resolve the inclusion of this material here, rather than via an edit-war in the article. No one removing this text - several IP's and one new account - has left an edit summary explaining why it should be removed.[1], [2], [3]. One of those anon IP's has since been blocked for vandalism.[4] Since the editors who have added or restored the text are more established editors and have explained its inclusion/restoration, the removal appears to be simple vandalism, and further unexplained deletions of this or other text will be treated as such. bd2412 T 00:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

unrelated and speculation, removed. You should not add info that is speculation and uncited, it's considered vandalism. Administrator like you should know better. Adadqwqwe 07:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the video discussed in the section. It does indeed contain ManBearPig and uses similar methodology to parody Gore, and is therefore hardly "unrelated". The material is copiously cited in the target article. I will remove the speculative language with respect to the 'appearance of endorsement'. I note that the removal of this text from the article was your first edit to Wikipedia. We use talk-page discussions to resolve matters of this nature, so please discuss the matter here and achieve a consensus with better-established editors before reverting again. Cheers! bd2412 T 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What does it have to do with this episode? Should we include http://www.manbearpig.com/ too? 70.48.251.164 18:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed another block of text added to the article:

Others have suggested that Al Gore really stands in for now-president George Bush, and the manbearpig for the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that which supossed existence were initially cited as reasons for the invasion of Iraq, comparing the picture of manbearpig shown around by Al Gore to the images of Iraqi trucks carrieing mobile bioweapons labs as shown by Colin Powell before the UN.

This seems to be a wholly implausible interpretation, and should not be included without citation as to who these "others" are that have suggested this, and why their opinion matters. bd2412 T 16:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

'All proven scientific data shows it isnt true' WTF

This episode officially killed my liking of South Park. How can they say that global warming doesnt exist without first UNPROVING the facts presented by numerous scientists. They say that theres no proven scientific data to show that global warming exists, well then where is the data that shows it doesnt exist? Matt and Trey can either look at the facts of it or continue to live in their cave of denial holding their hands over their ears screaming LALALALALLALALALALALA 140.159.2.31 00:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Whenever a theory is proposed (in the case of Global Warming, it's really just a hypothesis, not even a theory yet), burden of proof is on those who support the theory. Therefore, the burden of proof is on those who support the hypothesis of Global Warming. Even that's a misnomer, global warming and cooling are both real, and have happened many times. What is being debated is the anthropogenic factor, and the only fact that can be relied on is that nobody knows if it's happening, how much, and how much is anthropogenic. Now, if someone comes up with a specific counter argument to Anthropogenic Global Warming, then burden of proof for that argument is for the proponent. For example, if I say that while there is somewhat of a correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels, the rise in CO2 FOLLOWS the rise in tempereture rather than causing it, suggesting that warm temperatures are liberating CO2 from the oceans, then I must provide evidence [5] for my claim. [EDIT:Sorry I didn't sign this way back when, I'll sign it now.] Professor Chaos 21:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not smart. Stop trying to sound smart. Global warming is a fucking problem and it's pricks like you who are making the process so fucking slow. "Well, technically, it's unproven, therefore we cannot..." Shut the fuck up.

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This episode made me a South Park fan, excelsior! 70.48.248.12 23:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming

Is this episode Manbearpig or ManBearPig?

• Mr. Garrison

I don't get it

What are Trey Parker and Matt Stone trying to prove? I'm a fan of comedy, like any other normal person, but not when there is a hidden political message behind everything, especially when that message is brainless. Global warming is real and what Al Gore is doing is great. The problem with his movie is not with the facts, but with the fact that he represents himself as the lone man trying to convince the world of this problem. Why couldn't South Park have spoofed that? This isn't even a political issue, this is a smart vs stupid issue. If you don't believe in global warming, you are not smart. If you don't believe that humans are causing global warming, and all the recent heat waves and hurricanes are a direct result of that, then you are not smart. In summary, if you do not believe what the greatest minds in the world have to say about global warming, then you are stupid. I don't know much about Parker and Stone, but they are sending the wrong message here.

Since when did global warming and science in general become so uncool? I hate it. These days, it's like, "you read books? You care about the world we live in? HAHA, ur gay." 67.161.26.190 06:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

While I, personally, feel global warming IS a major problem, there is no justification for calling proponents of alternative theories "not smart", because those theories (especially those that propose that the variance is within normal climatological shifts) so have some merit. Just because I don't believe them myself doesn't make those theories brainless or ignorant, as they are well-conceived and are not unintelligent in construction. -- Ubergenius 17:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Show me one scientist who say that Hurricane Katrina is caused by global warming.142.151.175.39 23:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, there are some scientists who say that. Most don't, however (not that consensus means fact). I will have to dig it up, but there was an Idaho meteorologist who (this is a tangent, not global warming) said that Katrina was caused by a device developed by the Japanese mafia. He "retired" to pursue his theory. Professor Chaos 18:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Scientist generally don't contribute complex phenomena solely to one issue. However AFAIK the majority of scientists working global warming and hurricanes believe it has most probably contributed to the the increase in number and strength of hurricanes including Hurricane Katrina. The official spokesperson US Republican's liked to use in the aftermath of Hurrican Katrina was AFAIK one of the few who doesn't believe this (although he still believes global warming is a problem) Nil Einne 10:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is the guy you're talking about? Most global warming alarmists I've heard say that global warming isn't increasing the number of hurricanes, only the strength. The best source in my opinion is William Gray, who is one of the world's top hurricane experts. He says that not only did global warming not cause Katrina, but that most scientists don't believe global warming is a problem, but the media doesn't talk to them because it's not interesting or politically correct to say it won't cause a disaster. On a different note, what happened in New Orleans was a man made environmental disaster. I don't mean that man caused the hurricane, just that it was man's fault the damage was so bad. New Orleans is on a delta. Delta's are built up by river sediment that is dropped as the river loses speed when it meets a still body of water. There are many lobes of the Mississippi Delta, and New Orleans is built on the currently active one. Since we built levies, there is no longer sediment building the levy up, which is why New Orleans has settled below sea level. Now river deposition is no longer a dominant process, but wave action is actively eroding the delta. We can rebuild New Orleans, but it will be ruined again and again, and it will ultimately be a losing battle. Man cannot defeat nature (one reason I think environmental alarmists are silly), and if we fight nature, nature will always win in the end, and it is only a matter of time before New Orleans is permanently gone from the map. Professor Chaos 07:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here[6]is an article about the guy I was talking about in this thread that said Katrina was deliberately caused by the Japanese Mafia.

Dr. Who?

The moog/POV combination when Al Gore is dressed as ManBearPig is probably not related to Dr. Who in the least. It is, however, a dead-on parody of the '80s slasher film, with the killer approaching his victims from bushes as a cheesy synth plays out an ominous theme. The only Dr. Who connection is the cheesiness--i.e., the low budget effect.

it seems the good professor missed out on the studies, overwhelming scientific consenssus exist.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

In 2007, as part of its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC concluded that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.

"The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."[7]

"The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced."[8]

"On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues."[9]

Wow, thank you so much for posting this not only here, but on my discussion page as well. I hadn't ever heard of this organization and the amazing unbiased work they do. Next, let's hope Algore get's his oscar.Professor Chaos 07:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You don’t do much reading do you? The IPCC was the official study of the UNFCCC, the UN in other words the IPCC had the participation of over one hundred eighty nations and their leading researchers, the United States being one of those participants. As a Result this study represents the total consensus of the global scientific community, just take the inter wikilinks for more info.

Sarcasm, apparently, is lost on humorless kooks. I do read. If you're lucky, I'll tell you about the IPCC when my semester ends. Right now, my grades are a higher priority. Professor Chaos 15:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

::::UN is an evil, monolithic, faceless bureaucracy; it doesn't represent scientists, it represents politicians. 142.150.205.250 07:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Experts warn warming will harm society, nature

Al Gore's reaction

Was there not a seperate article on how he thought it was funny etc.? --198.254.16.201 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Help - a bit confused by vandals!

I have been trying to revert this to some kind of sense, but being a non South Park fan, it's hard to tell the nonsense vandalism from the real article! Can someone who knows about such things please give this a read to check I've killed all the nonsense, and not zapped any real stuff. Ta! LeeG 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't get past the first sentence

"This "Manbearpig" was created during the times of 1300 A.d. as some though non-reliable scientist." - Huh?

Excelsior

What is "Excelsior" referring to ?

Al Gore "has no friends"

This can't be a reference to the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" since this episode aired about a month before the movie was released. I removed the relevant trivia.