On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 05:38:25 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
<templetagteam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Mike Vandeman wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:52:56 GMT, "M. Halliwell"
>> <templetagteam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Mike,
>>>
>>> With regards to Wilson and Seney, where you quote them as saying "none
>>> of the relation****ps between water runoff and soil texture, slope,
>>> antecedent soil moisture, trail roughness, and soil resistance was
>>> statistically significant." Why not give us the full quote rather than
>>> taking them out of context...you know, the full quote where they
explain
>>> that the above, trimmed to suit your purposes quote, is valid for
their
>>> initial model for the results and that when they tried a different
>>> model, that it correlated quite well and that texture, slope and so on
>>> were significant?
>>>
>>> Michael Halliwell
>>
>> You are beating a dead horse. Their method of measuring erosion is
>> bogus on the face of it. Why don't you tell the truth?????
>
>Certainly, Mike, the Wilson and Seney methodology can be improved on,
Why do you have such a hard time admitting the truth: Their "research"
proved NOTHING.
>but that is not the point I made. You seemed to miss the one where I've
>shown that you claimed "Another reason to suspect that the measurements
>aren't valid" is the quote you gave. Dead horse or not, your text takes
>Wilson and Seney out of context to fit your needs, rather than telling
>the truth about what they said.
Nonsense. What I left out was IRRELEVANT to the basic question of
which form of recreation causes more erosion..
(Do I detect some deceit there? You
>wouldn't be trying to lie to folks about Wilson and Seney's results,
>would you, Mike?)
Actually, I UNDERSTATED how bad the study was. They admitted that the
mountain biking trail was significantly different from the hiking
trail. So they compared apples & oranges. I just added that to my
paper:
Another problem with the study is that the hikers and mountain
bikers used trails that were significantly different, prior to the
experiment!: "The results from Part A of Table 4 suggest that the
trails used for the five treatment types were not similar in terms of
their sediment yield behavior prior to the treatments. Trail plots
used for hikers were statistically different from one of the other
groups (off-road bicycles) at the .05 level" (p.84). This makes it
even less likely that the hiker-mountain biker comparison is valid.
>By the way Mike, the "excellent critical literature review" you like so
>much (Lathrop) also had praise for Wilson and Seney for their scientific
>method and said their type of study should be done more and in other
>locations.
I didn't say it was perfect. Wisdom et al also made a mistake
(UNDERESTIMATED the difference between mountain biking and hiking,
since they ignored distance travelled), but still found that mountain
biking had greater impact on elk than hiking.
>Michael Halliwell
You are obviously grasping at straws, and are STILL afraid to tell the
truth about these studies. But what can we expect from a MOUNTAIN
BIKER?!
--
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
|
