01-01-2007, 09:20 AM
|
#25 (permalink)
|
| | Re: Too bad Mike Vandman can't answer the tough questions...
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:37:17 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"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.
That's nothing but your uneducated OPINION. The SCIENCE says
otherwise.
>Psycho. That's you ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
|
|
|  |