BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sports encompasses life choices.

Successful sporting nations like Australia realise that sports, like any other specialised subjects, are best taught to selected groups that display both talent and interest in the field – forcing all to compete holds back the able and punishes the less able. The right way to go is to liberate those that don’t want to participate, and allow those that are extremely keen to go to academies that focus their talents more efficiently than a regular school ever could.\ Furthermore, our children are burdened enough in schools already, especially at the older end of the system, with multiple examinations. PE simply adds, needlessly, to this hectic schedule.\
Physical education is best taught to selected groups

Successful sporting nations realise that sports, like any other specialised subjects, are best taught to selected groups that display both talent and interest in the field – forcing all to compete holds back the able and punishes the less able. The right way to go is to liberate those that don’t want to participate, and allow those that are extremely keen to go to academies that focus their talents more efficiently than a regular school ever could. Furthermore, our children are burdened enough in schools already, especially at the older end of the system, with multiple examinations. PE simply adds, needlessly, to this hectic schedule.
Physical education helps to forge skills that will prove invaluable in later life

Physical education undermines one's character as much as it strengthens and forges it. For every future athlete who grows in stature as he becomes comfortable in a team environment, there are a number of academic students who are forced weekly to cope with the brutality and criticisms of others more gifted at specific sports. Values like respect are not taught on a football field, any glance at a professional football match leads inexorably to that conclusion. Furthermore, learning about teamwork and co-operation no longer requires hours spent playing sport; they can be taught just as accurately and effectively in a classroom through music, drama, community projects, etc. without the need to encourage an ultra-competitive ethos.
Physical Education is an important part of holistic schooling.

Physical Education is an important part of holistic schooling. PE is an aspect of school being about more than just book learning – it is about educating the whole person, a holistic education that betters us in an all-round sense, rather than a merely academic experience. Some aspects of physical education are vital for future wellbeing, e.g. being able to swim, learning to lift heavy weights safely.\ Arguments about cost seem petty when compared to this aim – and also misguided, since PE departments would continue to exist to serve those that chose to study PE voluntarily, even if the subject were no longer to be compulsory. Arguments about the size of classes may well be correct, but these suggest better funding for PE rather than abandonment of the commitment to public health.\
No time to hold back

Among other factors which may be responsible for climate change, human action is generally regarded a strong contribution – and one which looks set to increase, particularly in light of the swift industrialization of certain large nations, such as China. There may not be time to wait. "At least 40 per cent of the world's economy and 80 per cent of the needs of the poor are derived from biological resources." — The Convention About Life on Earth (UN Convention on Biodiversity) Climate change interferes with ecosystem functioning and resources provided by the 'natural' environment. For example, rainfall in the tropics is largely created by the rainforests themselves, the potential for pharmaceuticals being discovered, timber resources etc. These have been valued at US $33 trillion. This is compared to a global GNP of $18 trillion.
Natural Variability Alone is Insufficient to Account for the Bulk of the Warming

• Using sound and well understood physical principals, scientists are able to construct accurate and reliable models of Earth's climate which they can then use to "hindcast" past climate changes. They have discovered that when only natural factors are included, the models do not accurately reflect the 20th century climate change. It is only when both natural and anthropogenic factors (such as CO2) are considered that the models present realistic results. • Scientists have also been unable to discover any natural forcing-such as changes in solar output-active during the past century sufficient to have produced the bulk of the 20th century warming trend.
Oceans regulate the amount of CO2 in the air through absorption equilibrium

Equilibrium is rapid and total as indicated by many sources of evidence. One, the graph for CO2 in the air is an extremely precise line. If nothing were regulating, it would vary wildly. Two, if equilibrium were not established, oceans would be absorbing or losing CO2 at a high rate, yet no detectable change occurs beyond the stab in the dark guess that it might have dropped 0.15 pH units over the past century. http://www.nov55.com
CO2 is a heavy gas

Being one of the heaviest gas molecules in the atmosphere CO2 stays low, hugging the ground and allowing plants to photosynthesize. Have you ever heard of plants thriving in the higher atmosphere? According to the climate change theories, the biggest problem is the CO2 which is somehow getting into the higher atmosphere, this way creating the greenhouse effect. Now, how can a very heavy gas rise up where there's little or no air? I'd like to see a mechanism that allows the CO2 gas to be high up and low down at the same time. People I asked about this gave at least a whole page of "facts" that none of which made sense and are often contradicting each other. Truth shouldn't be complicated. If it is, it's probably a lie.
Global temperatures have always been changing despite Co2 increases

• The Earth's climate is a complex and dynamic system that is subject to a multitude of different forcings on many different timescales. The fact that the climate can change and has changed independently of carbon dioxide does not mean that carbon dioxide cannot change the climate. It simply means that some other force, be it an increase in solar output, a change in the planet's albedo, etc., has overwhelmed the forcing signal from carbon dioxide. • In 1991, for example, after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, there was a sharp drop in global temperature following the massive outpouring of ash from the volcano. This sudden increase in air born particulate matter briefly overwhelmed many other forcing factors and drove the temperature down by several degrees until the ash settled out of the atmosphere. This is just one of many examples of a short term forcing managing to overwhelm a longer term forcing, such as an enhanced greenhouse effect. - Global temperatures have often changed in parallel with CO2 increases over the Earth's history. We know this from the fossil record and measures of trapped gas in the ice caps. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So, even if the CO2 does not come exclusively from human emissions (i.e. not anthropogenic) we are currently experiencing an increase in it and this is linked to climate change. At least SOME of the increase can be attributed to human activities either directly or indirectly (Burning of fossil fuels is direct. Deforestation is less direct. Etc.).
Co2 does not hold in heat!

• All of the energy flowing from Earth to space is necessarily in the form of electromagnetic radiation. Earth is floating in a vacuum, making it physically impossible for it to lose energy through conduction or convection. So while much of the energy moving across the planet's surface is not in the form of radiation, it is the only form of energy important in determining the planet's temperature–the planet's temperature being determined by the ratio of the flux of outgoing terrestrial radiation to the flux of incoming solar radiation. • Also, carbon dioxide is an effective absorber in the infrared spectrum. Due to its temperature, Earth radiates energy primarily in the infrared spectrum. So while carbon dioxide may fill a small absorptive window, it fills a very important one.
Measurements are inaccurate

• Surface monitoring stations are not the only evidence that the planet is warming. satellite data, radiosondes, borehole analysis, glacial melt observations, sea ice melt, sea level rise, proxy reconstructions, and permafrost melt all conclusively show that the planet has undergone a pronounced and rapid warming over the past century and a half. So even if the entire surface temperature record were contaminated beyond use, there would still be no doubt whatsoever that the planet is warming. • Aside from this, it has been demonstrated in several independent studies (Peterson, 2003) that the urban heat island effect does not significantly affect the surface temperature record. That is, the 20th century warming trend is not simply an artefact of urban development. • It is also important to note that the warming trend is not an output of a computer model, but a conclusion based upon observing real-world evidence such as that listed above.
Many scientists think it does

Anthropogenic effects on climate change are accepted by more than 99% of climate scientists. The longest, high resolution datasets in the world are land and sea surface temperature, collected since the 1860s, the errors of which have now been statistically corrected (Folland and Parker, 1995). Since the advent of climate modeling since the early 1990s, technology has improved so rapidly that scientists are now able to isolate the different forcings of climate change, and have shown unequivocally that natural variability, sun spots and volcanic activity are not able to explain the rise in global temperature, and that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 (which have been monitored in Hawaii since 1957) is the only plausible explanation for the additional, catastrophic rise in temperature.
Global temperatures have always been changing despite Co2 increases

• The icecap on Kilimanjaro has been melting since the 1800s, long before human emissions could have influenced the global climate, and satellites do not detect a warming trend in the region; deforestation at the foot of the mountain is the likely explanation for the melting trend (See http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/468/218/ for more info); • Sea levels have been rising at the rate of 10 to 20 centimeters (four to eight inches) per hundred years for the past 6,000 years • There has been no increase in extreme weather events (.e.g., floods, tornadoes, drought) over the past century or in the past 15 years; computer models used to forecast climate change do not predict more extreme weather • The Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica has been melting for the past 6,000 years; Greenland’s ice sheet is not melting according to 17 years of satellite data recently released (See http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/1548/218/ for more information) • Most of the warming in the past century occurred before 1940, before CO2 emissions could have been a major factor • Temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as CO2 levels increased
Co2 does not hold in heat!

The public is being misled through propaganda to assume CO2 is like a sheet of plastic holding in heat. CO2 can only absorb 8% of radiation frequencies available (No one disputes this.), and only about 1% of the heat leave the earth as radiation--the other 99% being conduction, convection and evaporation. NASA says its 41%, not 1%, but there is no agreement, and night vision equipment shows there is very little infrared radiation given off by normal temperature matter. http://www.nov55.com
Measurements are inaccurate

• Temperature readings from reporting stations outside the U.S. are poorly maintained and staffed and probably inaccurate; those in the U.S., which are probably more accurate, show little or no warming trend (See http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/ for more information) • Temperature readings taken by terrestrial reporting stations are rising because they are increasingly surrounded by roads and buildings which hold heat, the “urban heat island” effect; methods used to control for this effect fail to reduce temperatures enough to offset it; See Anthony Watt’s “How not to measure temperature series” at http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-66/ •Sufficient data exist to measure changes in mass for only 79 of the 160,000 glaciers in the world • Computer simulations are not real-world data and cannot be relied on to produce reliable forecasts. Data is usually inputted by persons looking for specific outcomes. See http://www.landshape.org/enm/ for more information.
No time to hold back

The adverse economic effect of taxing carbon dioxide production in an effort to control "CO2-induced" global warming will be substantial. Poverty will be created and wealth will be destroyed. Nothing is worse for the environment than poverty. People in poverty don't care a whit for the environment, they just want to feed their children. Examples of this throughout the world, and in cities everywhere, are abundant. Environmental protection is considered an unaffordable luxury when people are poor. With the global economy on a knife-edge, it is no time to hold back-- we should all be fighting against those who are incapable of recognizing that the cause-effect order is not established for CO2 and temperature... Indeed, the DATA themselves more strongly support that CO2 rises occur as a result of temperature increases, and that our addition to CO2 in the atmosphere will have no effect at all that is predictable from the previous data..
There is no scientifically valid mechanism for CO2 causing global warming.

• The carbon dioxide greenhouse effect provides a scientifically valid mechanism. CO2 produces a warming effect not by soaking up the radiation in its immediate vicinity, like a sponge, but by raising the effective radiating level of the atmosphere to a colder layer. • The atmosphere doesn't act as a single unit, but is made up of hundred of different layers. Some of the energy radiated from Earth is stopped in each of these layers. The energy is then re-radiated in a random direction, but on average the energy is moving either "up" or "down." The atmosphere gets thinner as altitude increases, so eventually the radiation will reach a layer high enough and thin enough to escape to space. • If you increase the concentrations of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, the thin upper layers will become more opaque and thus absorb more of the IR; therefore the place where the majority of the energy finally escapes moves to a higher level. These higher levels are much colder (until you reach the stratosphere, but as most infrared photons escaping to space are emitted by the troposphere, this can be ignored), and so they do not radiate heat very well. Thus the rate that radiation escapes to space is lower, and the planet will take in more than it radiates. As the higher levels emit some of the excess downwards, the lower levels will warm all the way down to the surface. • The imbalance will remain until the higher levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving. • 19th century physicist John Tyndall described the effect neatly like so: "As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at Earth's surface."
Natural Variability Alone is Insufficient to Account for the Bulk of the Warming

From the http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cloudiness.htm website:[Thayer Watkin Silicon Valley& Tornado Alley USA]] "A small change in cloudiness over the rest of the Earth's surface can be far more important than major changes in the area of the ice caps. It is important to keep such things in perspective. Climate modelers have a distinct tendency to focus on a sensational minor topic while neglecting the major topics of climate. Clouds and cloudiness are the major factors in the Earth's climate. Clouds rule the Earth's climate. Everything else, including the atmospheric greenhouse gases, is marginal." Please remember that "consensus" among scientist is when they leave the building still speaking to each other. What entity/individual has determined the current 360 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere vs roughly 250 ppm pre-industrial revolution is the optimum level for life on earth (both mammal and vegitation) ??? Some data indicates that at about 160 ppm plant life on earth would wither and die. Climate models do not include the effect of cloud formation because it is almost impossible to model their effect on earth's climate. If it were possible for man to control CO2 in the atmosphere and return it to pre industrial levels and that descision proved to be wrong would it be easy to return to the optimum levels ?? Remember the earth's climate/weather is a dynamic, always changing and the so-called MMGW is more of a political ploy for more control over peoples lives than anything else. Model input data in some cases has been tweeked to arrive at a predetermind conclusion because the reuslt wasn't what the researcher wanted !!!
The 'Global warming' phenomenon could be caused by other things

There are probably other factors which are contributing to the warming effect, both natural and man-made. However, calculations also show that the rise in temperature can be easily explained by the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Until another compelling explanation is put forward, this would seem to tbe the most likely cause. Also, just because something else could be causing global warming doesn't mean that it is. Also, change in land use and ubranization both cause changes in CO2 content in our atmostphere.If we cut down more trees, lesser trees will be available to absorb CO2. And the change in CO2 content causes global warming
Oceans regulate the amount of CO2 in the air through absorption equilibrium

Oceans do absorb atmospheric CO2. And under normal conditions the oceans and the biosphere will generally keep the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere constant. However, human activities are producing CO2 at a much higher rate than the planet's oceans and biosphere are able to absorb it. This imbalance is responsible for virtually the whole of the 20th century rise in CO2. Also, estimating pH changes need not involve any stabbing in the dark thanks to fossil records and certain species being restricted by pH (e.g. shelled molluscs) due to their physiological requirements. And 0.15 pH units may not sound like much but pH is measured along a logarithmic scale.
7 Global warming is based on computer modelling and has had no empirical confirmation

World expert in analysis of stochastic and hydrological processes, professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis, has shown that the models have made no valid predictions during the last 20 years; McKitrick, McIntyre and Herman have shown the model predictions of temperature exceed the observable trends by as much as 300%. Ferenc Miskolczi's 3 papers, in 2004, 2007 and 2010 show that the greenhouse effect has not changed in the last 61 years, therefore proving that the slight heating which has occurred over the 20thC has not been due to greenhouse gases such as CO2.
One-Party System

Direct Democracy in its truest form must necessarily be a one-party system. This party would be a neutral party, whose only policies are to do what benefits the majority of people, be it through their own ideas or those of others. Before any policy is implemented, it will be scrutinised by the public, and they will vote for it via the polling station/postal service. If the majority of people say yes, then it is made law and, if no, then it isn't. The government will always provide the choice between various policies on these forms, including the option of "none of the above". This is the only way to ensure that people get what they want. However, this direct democracy needs an intelligent and well informed public to make the correct decisions for the whole of society. Much of society is like this. However, if the public wish something to be made law or a certain policy to be seen through, but that it would be truly detrimental to the country, it must be stopped by the government. This leads us into a grey area whereby we cannot know where to draw the line. However, the line is far easier to draw here along with the system being far more democratic than what it is like under a representative democracy. Representative democracy functions on the premise that differnet parties have different ways of doing things, along with different wants and opinions. The idea that people have to choose between these parties is surely wrong for a democracy. It is not the parties that should be making the policy suggestions, it is the people (In a true democracy). Therefore representative democracy is not really a part of this, for it channels certain views and opinions into a particular party/candidate. This party/candidate then acts on the voters' behalf (or is supposed to) but it rarely takes heed to what the country has to say. Representative democracy allows the personal agenda of the ruling classes to cloud the agenda of what is right for the citizens of this country.
Representative democracy is far better suited to dealing with a large electorate.

Many people are upset with the choices that representatives make. Representative democracy is not democracy at all. It is LEADERSHIP SELECTION, an entirely different concept. People have no control over what the alleged "representatives" do. They don't have to make binding promises on the way they will vote and due to "log rolling", they pass laws that would never find any majority among the people ("If you vote for my law A, I'll support your law B"). Political alliances among parties with the intent of becoming a "ruling majority" are even worse: electors will be defrauded of any actual influence, e.g. the "Great Coalition" in Germany, where socialists and conservatives ended up "sharing power", enacting laws that enraged the members of both electorates in a gigantic act of log rolling. In short: representatives represent no one but themselves and their own interests. Electoral promises are worthless. Candidates are only elected based on emotional and ideological appeal, never on actual competence. Their choices wouldn't be the choices of their electorate, were they given a chance to vote on issues (often observed in Switzerland).
The complexity of many political issues would make some of them difficult for the average voter to understand.

That's merely insulting and arrogant. Politicians are not smarter than the average voter. Most of the time, they understand nothing about the issue. Politicians are expert actors, speakers and liars, they're winners of popularity contests, not experts on any of the issues that they are supposed to make decisions on. Hardly any politician ever reads the laws he's supposed to vote on, because he's too busy with fund-raising and other far more important issues (for them). Never forget: POWER CORRUPTS (Lord Action). So even if you knew a politician once when he was young and enthusiastic and he seemed quite a nice chap, a short time in government will thoroughly corrupt him. Very few remain true. The only exception that comes to mind is Ron Paul, the senator from Texas, who has consistently voted for low taxes, individual freedom and the restriction of government power. Trusting politicians and bureaucrats to work for the good of the country is like giving Tequila and car keys to teenagers and hope they'll bring back your car safely (P.J. O'Rourke).