Prove Climate Change is a Myth, Get a Free Gun

I am the daughter and granddaughter of sportsmen, the type of men who love to fish and hunt. I am also a dyed-in-the-wool progressive who doesn’t eat meat. However, I will always have a soft spot in my heart for sportsmen because of my father and grandfathers. Imagine my surprise, not to mention joy, when I saw a Grist article about the chairman and founder of the group, Conservation Hawks, Todd Tanner, a self avowed sportsman, who says climate change is real. Not only that, but announced that he will give his Beretta Silver Pigeon 12 gauge shotgun, a gift from his wife, to anyone who can prove that climate change is not real.

Is Tanner serious about giving away his gun if someone can actually convince him that climate change is not real? In the words of a sportswoman from Alaska, “You betcha.” Hal Herring, writing for Field & Stream (a magazine my father has long subscribed to), stated, “He’s not kidding. You convince him, he’ll give you the gun.”

Tanner told Herring, “If somebody can convince me that I don’t have to worry about climate change, I’ll give it them. Or I’ll auction it off and donate the proceeds to the charity of their choice.” However, there is a caveat to the deal: The argument will have to be “real argument, with real facts.” Tanner added that he doesn’t think “that argument exists, but I’m willing to be surprised.”

Tanner’s views on climate change are very refreshing, given that many famous sportsmen and sportswomen have opposite views.

“It’s real, it’s threatening everything we love. Not taking action is not an option.”

Contrast that with what the famous sportswoman from Alaska says about climate change.

Why is he making the offer now? He is offering the Beretta because “this is the point where we can still stand up and have an effect. Maybe it’s the last point.”

When asked what the percentage is of sportsmen who care about climate change, Tanner answered that it is “maybe 50 percent.” However, he said it is a “tricky question.” He gave an example that showed just how tricky the question is to answer. During a talk he gave to a group in Montana, someone mentioned that they didn’t believe in climate change. Tanner then asked them if they witnessed any changes in their lifetimes.

“Well, that set off the conversation, then. Everybody had a story about that,” Tanner said. “And everybody I know does, too. Because these days, it’s fishermen and hunters who are the ones who notice these things.”

I seriously doubt Tanner will end up giving away his Beretta. I applaud him for raising awareness about climate change to the people who love to fish and hunt in the best way they can understand: offering up one of his prized guns.

Photo credits: Flickr user, npmullins

Gina-Marie Cheeseman

Gina-Marie is a freelance writer and journalist armed with a degree in journalism, and a passion for social justice, including the environment and sustainability. She writes for various websites, and has made the 75+ Environmentalists to Follow list by

10 responses

  1. Prove climate change does not exist? The burden of proof is on those claiming that man can actually influence climate, not the other way around. This would be like asking somebody to prove there are no unicorns. You can’t prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. This is true in elementary logic and the scientific method. BTW…in case you care to hear my position on the subject. The earth’s climate has always been in flux and I am sure we have warmed and will likely warm again…and cool again. However, claiming man has influence is really far fetched…..and even the most “scientific” opinions on this are mere corrlation studies….ie…not scientific at all. Though they make it sound scientific.

    1. Good point POB, thanks for that. I will now change my mind thanks to the succinct brilliance of your one paragraph de-construction of the problem. Mate, with such eloquence, you should run for Prez in 2012. I’m surprised you aren’t being interviewed now by reporters as you really have just solved the issue. Well done sir…

  2. Did you not read the article?  Guess you don’t get the gun.  Nobody asked for your two cents on what you believe to be true.  If anyone sees the devastating effects first, it’s the Alaskans and those at the polar extremes.  It’s simple.  CO2 can be measured.  You can even get a personal hand meter that measures CO2 in ppm.  The Republican candidates are trying to find an issue that could possibly beat Obama, but Republicans in the past were very much for improving the environment around us, e. g. Teddy Roosevelt.  If you believe it’s not man made, then prove it with some figures, and you get this guy’s gun.  That was the whole point of the article.  Obviously you can’t and the 98 percent of scientists who believe it through quantitative evidence that man is affecting the stratosphere through pollution actually do have the numbers.  Where are your numbers for the “natural cycle?”

  3. Again….the burden of proof is on those making the claim.  You say global warming is created by man, you prove it to me.  It’s impossible to prove a negative. Your CO2 numbers merely prove correlation, not cause.  98% of scientists???  Ha….I love when you guys throw numbers like that one around.  It’s nonsense.

    My numbers for the natural cycle?  No numbers.  History, logic, and common sense.  How did the earth get into the Ice Age without human involvement?  Oh..and then we warmed out of the ice age…again, with no human involvement.  The earth’s climate has changed without human involvement and is happening now.

    1. POB, thanks for answering the question.  “No numbers.”  Exactly the answer I expected.  Okay, 98 percent of the National Academy of Sciences.  That’s a large percentage, based on quantitative analysis and climate models.  By the way, I am a scientist and have taken advanced chemistry and physics, although I’m still learning the stuff.  If there are any flaws, which scientific data does come across at times, then it is not people like you who prove them wrong with your “data.”  From an ethical, and probably legal standpoint, scientists are the ones who present any disparities in the research.  History, whatever logic you proclaim, and sheer senselessness (not common sense) are your arguments.  Throw in denial without scientific evidence, but instead “scientific heresay.”  True we’ve had ice ages, and rapid warmth can affect cycles.  We probably would have a natural warming, but we as humans are also accelerating the process.  We’re simply polluting, just like we’re accelerating species extinction.  The latter is a different subject by the way.  Doing nothing is not the solution, like the guy with the gun has mentioned.  We can still keep our jobs and build the economy, but it will take innovation and possibly different ways of doing things.  To completely deny it and take no action is ridiculous.  We as a human species have come a long way scientifically, from evolutionary science, mapping the genome, and identifying the known physical universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies.  So we can’t, according to you, measure a simple combination of Carbon and O2 molecules in the natural CO2 blanket?  By the way, most of the CO2 emissions are coming from the coal industry.  On a similar note, chlorine from CFCs at one time was killing off O3 (ozone) molecules in the ozone layer, and switching to other products has improved it.  We could do a similar process of reducing CO2, such as switching to natural gas that liquefies CO2 into the ground, or possibly nuclear energy that has no emissions.  If we could better manage the waste, but that’s another issue.  I just ask you to do a little research before mouthing off your denialism with “No numbers.”

      1. I wouldn’t bother 1 in 7, POB is too busy on his election campaign to follow basic science.

        What are your campaign strong points POB? You could base them around the POB acronym…

        I like Party of Bulls#!t. Like yourself it’s plain and  simple.

      2. So, you’re a scientist and yet you can’t see how all of your evidence comes from observational studies, proving nothing.  At best, it shows some correlation between CO2 and warming, but that does not prove causation.
        I never said you could not measure CO2.  I know you can.  I just said that it proves nothing.
        Also…science is not only numbers.  In fact, it’s very logical as well.  If logic can show that you are full of garbage, then producing useless numbers like CO2 is a waste of time.

  4. Correlation is not causation. Nor is it possible to either prove or disprove prophecy. But all the alleged scientists in the world can get out in a chorus line singing the scary lines from the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change and it won`t make an argument that conforms to scientific method. Proof and disproof are inaccessible. Things are so nuts meteorologists – working weathermen – are to be coached so as not to reveal their prevalent skepticism if Yale 360 gets its way.
    Here`s a comment I just made in a private forum discussing
    Better then we don`t obscure that reality with nonsense. I read
    Desmedoma Despair and appreciate her honest conviction that ozone is
    killing trees. Yet she rails at my so-called `denierism` of prophecy
    while not understanding that speculation fueling taxation as promoted by
    politicians has taken centre stage from accelerating shortage of water,
    Monsanto`s destruction of seed stocks, poisoning of our immune system
    with pesticides, and farming practices cultivating disease in mass
    biolabs posing as farms.

    Here are a few collected pieces debunking `concensus`.

  5. ’98 percent of scientists who believe it’
    Make that alleged 98%. And science is not a consensus, no more than when the church harassed Galileo – which does show establishment meddling with ‘science’ every bit as much as when acid rain ‘was not caused by coal burning’.
    I do quip with science writers from time to time – bloggers who caution me that claims of certainty are far overblown from the real state of affairs – which is hardly something I couldn’t figure out for myself.
    What do you mean by ‘the natural cycle’ ? The long term decline in temperature or something on a shorter timeline showing fluctuation is the norm ? There is no need to posit a single routine cause for temperature change and every reason to think the factors are many.
    But if I can’t ‘prove a negative’ you win. Nobody can show something does not exist – which is why it makes a lovely ‘argument’ when all one wants to do is ‘win’ debating points. That is why the Logical Fallacy of Poisoning the Well Argumentation is such a win for chanting propaganda.

Leave a Reply