On Thursday, June 20, 2013 6:29:16 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, June 20, 2013 2:00:14 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote:

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:52:23 AM UTC-7, wrote:



On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:11:43 PM UTC-4, Mike Vandeman wrote: Just as I thought: you can't refute a single line. All you can do is pretend that you read it, and then BLUFF. The score so far: Mountain Bikers ZERO, Vandeman 1000. IMBA updated their references on the environmental impacts of mountain bikes in 2007. The manuscript draft you pasted above is about 6 years out of date and you should revise it to keep up with current events.. Clearly, it's an evolving field. You should also not depend on IMBA to do you "favors" by simply duplicating their literature review. In fact, the title of this manuscript is deceptive, given that it's foundation is a response to an IMBA article, not an objective literature review, as the title implies.







You are only broadcasting your ignorance again. I reviewed ALL experimental studies, including the Wisdom et al one that IMBA ignores because it doesn't favor mountain biking. Non-experimental studies are scientifically worthless. If you knew ANYTHING about science, you would know that. So my paper is not out of date. I added one new study to it recently.





Bull.



This has already been covered ad nauseam, so I'm not going to bother arguing it with you again. Time and time again you have refused to produce the search criteria for your "literature" review,

I just did! All you have to do is look up a few lines. I know, that's too difficult for you.

making it impossible to reproduce your search using conventional databases.



... Reproducibility, of course, being a foundation of scientific theory, right, Michael? Why won't you let anyone reproduce your "science?"



(Hint: because it isn't science.)



This piece of unpublishable garbage is 9 years old. That's out of date. There have been multiple peer-reviewed papers published on the topic since then... definitely more than the "one new study" you managed to identify during the last 9 years.



You and I have discussed more than that in this very forum, so you're clearly cherry picking again if you only added one.





As a PhD and a self-professed "expert" you should be familiar enough with collecting peer-reviewed articles to do this yourself. I also have a question about the following passage: "Bikes create V-shaped ruts in trails, throw dirt to the outside on turns, crush small plants and animals on and under the trail, facilitate increased levels of human access into wildlife habitat, and drive other trail users (many of whom are seeking the tranquility and primitiveness of natural surroundings) out of the parks." When you use the word, "park," what specifically are you referring to? National Parks? State parks? Preserves? Or just things labeled as "parks" by the local interests? You don't make that at all clear. Because in another thread you said that only an "idiot" would call some of these things "parks."







Irrelevant. That is not a scientific issue. The point of the paper is that mountain biking has MUCH greater impacts than hiking.



Actually, I find your blatant hypocrisy quite relevant.

Your vagueness proves that you don't know what you are talking about. No details whatsoever! I, on the other hand, explained everything in great detail in my paper. Vandeman 1000, mountain bikers still ZERO.