CFACT’s Morano & economist Bauman exchange blows in climate change debate at U of MinnesotaadminSeptember 20, 2018
Economist Yoram Bauman gives his opening presentation of why he is (albeit wrongly) in favor of a carbon tax.
Sparks flew, laughter roared, and facts were presented as CFACT’s Marc Morano and economist Yoram Bauman put on the gloves at the University of Minnesota for a spirited debate on climate change.
The debate was hosted by the University of Minnesota’s Twin Cities CFACT Chapter as a chance to allow students to hear all sides of the climate debate.
The debate drew a diverse crowd as many said it was their the first time hearing the “climate skeptic” side to this debate, as others came with their heels dug in to their opinion on the matter.
While Yoram Bauman, who is known for mixing comedy with his lectures on numerous topics, began to poke fun at Mark by ripping up his top selling book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Changeand launched a barrage of one liners and canned statements, Morano fired back with facts.
Students line up to ask a question of the debate participants.
Marc Morano made mention of the fact that his book was endorsed by Nobel prize winning scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever. Morano stated, “He’s the real Nobel prize winning scientist – he won it in physics, not a Nobel peace prize, like people like Al Gore, Michael Mann, and others, claim that they did.” The statement was followed by cheers and applause by the room as even Bauman made it a point to laugh at Al Gore.
The students and attendees enjoyed the talk as Minnesota CFACT President Adam Bowen said, “I thought the event went really well with both debaters allowing for facts and information to win while still having a funny aspect from the stand up comedian and Marc Morano.”
Halfway through the debate, Marc hammered Bauman on how a carbon tax would actually impact the climate: “So how is [a carbon tax] going to affect the climate? You’re giving a spin answer here. Why should we support something where you portray the problem – we need electric cars we need this because its a moral obligation but you tout no impact on the climate – you just talk about symbolism, but what’s the impact of the emissions cut, tell me the temperature, tell me the storm impact.”
Debates like these show students that there is more than just one side to the climate change debate and help teach that more voices in the field of science are best not less, especially when hard facts and evidence are being presented.