| Re: Too bad Mike Vandman can't answer the tough questions...
"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:s5mbp2t4cq1d4hgt594co675a71cl8jpk5@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:58:21 GMT, Michael Halliwell
> <templetagteam@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>Gee Mike....
>>
>>You didn't answer my question the last time you tried posting this
>>opinion paper.....here, let me paraphrase where we left off (and this is
>>just on Wilson and Seney):
>>
>>In early December 2006 on alt.mountain-bike I posted...
>>
>>>Don't YOU read the reports you claim are "junk science"? Or maybe you are
>>>intentionally leaving out the full quote of Wilson and Seney:
>>
>>>"The initial regression results were not very encouraging in that none of
>>>the
>>>relationships between water runoff and soil texture, slope, antecedent
>>>soil
>>>moisture, trail roughness, and soil resistance was statistically
>>>significant.
>>>
>>>The switch to multiple regression and the inclusion of soil texture as a
>>>series
>>>of indicator variables improved the model performance."
>
> But not enough to make the measure of erosion VALID: " Water run-off
> (9%) was one of three variables that made smaller contributions." 9%
> is too small to validate the measure.
>
>>>and later when discussing the multiple regression model:
>>>
>>>".ten independent variables and cross-products combined to explain 70% of
>>>the
>>>variability in sediment yield. Treating the cumulative contributions of
>>>the
>>>different variables to the final result as a rough guide to their
>>>contributions
>>>confirmed that soil texture (37%), slope (35%) and user treatment (35%)
>>>had the
>>>most impact. Water run-off (9%) was one of three variables that made
>>>smaller
>>>contributions."
>>>
>>>
>>>Or did the fact that it was the initial model that had the poor fit and
>>>didn't
>>>account for slope, etc. which was corrected by using a different model
>>>escape you?
>
> Nope. The measure of erosion is STILL not valid. It wasn't
> "corrected". It was only "improved". 9% is still a very poor
> performance.
>
>>
>>Michael J. Vandeman replied:
>>
>>>If water run-off had only a 9% correlation with the measure of
>>>erosion, it was obviously NOT a valid measure of erosion. QED
>>
>>To which I replied:
>>
>> >You have no research (including of your own) to prove this
>>assertation.
>
> My Ph.D., you forgot, is in PSYCHOMETRICS.
Psycho. That explains alot.
Your "research" is anacdotal at best. Pure mathematics says your theories
are full of ****. If one applied mathematics to the trail system as a ratio
of the total environment through which the trails pass, then multiplied the
result IN YOUR FAVOR by a factor of 100, the result says that if you were
100% accurate in EVERYTHING you say, the maximum impact to the environment
would be about 0.04% of trails would have an adverse impact on plant and
animal species, and that number would include the entire trail, not just the
tiny fraction of which is actually damaged to the point of causing adverse
affect. Surely, of the 0.04% of impact, a considerable amount of that impact
would result from multiple use, NOT just mountain biking activities. Take
out the impacts of multiple use and consider solely mountain bikes, and you
have an environmental impact that should it be mitigated fully and
completely, would not present habitat preservation in any significant
amount. In an entire state park or forest, you _might_ save a space that is
equivelent to the size of my residential property (about 7500 sq. ft.). When
the park or forest is measured in hundreds, thousands, of square acres,
saving 7500 sq. ft. is not statistically significant.
Psycho. That's you ...
|