Question Time: Artificial Intelligence - Embracing the Future

SUMMARY:
------------------------------
I’m buzzing to share this clip from our Question Time panel on Artificial Intelligence — a lively, unapologetic Q&A that quickly pivots into a heated debate about climate models and media coverage. An audience member challenges the panel about global warming and whether climate science can be modelled accurately; one panellist calls climate a chaotic system and argues that computer models are unreliable, suggesting money and groupthink help sustain the narrative. The exchange touches on the role of the IPCC, how the media report modelling results, and why clever people can still be fooled. There are references to Jonathan Gruber and a nod to a PragerU video as well. It’s frank, confrontational and very Australian in tone — not a polished lecture but an honest conversation about trust, expertise and the limits of modelling, both in AI and climate science. If you like robust debate and want to hear direct answers rather than soundbites, this clip is for you. Join the discussion below and tell us who you side with — the technologist, the sceptic, or the media critic.

RUMBLE DESCRIPTION:
-----------------------------------
Welcome back — here’s a raw, candid slice from our Question Time session on Artificial Intelligence that turns into a proper debate about climate modelling, media responsibility and expertise. During the audience Q&A an attendee directs a pointed question about global warming to the panel, and one panellist argues that climate is a chaotic system and that computer models cannot reliably predict it. He links the persistence of the climate narrative to money, institutional incentives and a lack of rigorous questioning from journalists, even name-checking Jonathan Gruber and a recent PragerU piece.

This clip isn’t about preaching — it’s about listening. You’ll hear frank opinions about AI modelling, why we should interrogate the people who build models, and how the media could do a better job explaining uncertainty. Expect blunt language, sceptical takes and viewpoints that may be controversial. Whether you agree or not, it’s a useful conversation starter about how complex systems are modelled and communicated to the public.

If this provokes you, excellent — comment below, share your reasoning and keep it civil. Hit subscribe if you want more panel clips, debates and audience Q&A. Follow us for full recordings, links to related resources and upcoming events. If you want a timestamped version or the full panel, drop a comment and we’ll pin the best moments. Cheers for watching — tell us whose side you’re on and why.

⚠️ CONTENT DISCLAIMER ⚠️
The views, opinions, and statements expressed in this video are those of the individual speaker(s) and audience members. They do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or positions of Western Heritage Australia or its affiliates.

This content is presented for educational and informational purposes as well as to facilitate public discourse on important social and political issues. We provide a platform for diverse Australian voices to be heard, to assist the public in forming their own informed opinions.

Western Heritage Australia does not endorse, verify, or take responsibility for the accuracy of statements made by speakers. All claims, statistics, and opinions remain the responsibility of the original speaker. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult multiple sources when forming opinions on these topics.

This video may contain strong political opinions, controversial viewpoints, strong language, or mature themes. Viewer discretion is advised.