| Re: Too bad Mike Vandman can't answer the tough questions...
"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:15kip2ln5n4664qf1fuq4asjvv3vl2utd7@4ax.com...
> 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.
>
The science of my mathematics conflicts with the science of your psychosis.
Mathematics trumps psychosis. You lose.
|