|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
WHOOPS: more science mike won't like
http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/Mountai...west-white.pdf
Key conclusion: The findings from this study reinforce results from previous research that certain impacts to mountain bike trails, especially width, are compa- rable or less than hiking or multiple-use trails, and significantly less than impacts to equestrian or off-highway vehicle trails. Note: Data for the study were collected from 319 sample points gathered from 162.3 miles of mountain bike trails in five common ecological regions of the southwest United States. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
WHOOPS: more science mike won't like
On Thursday, August 8, 2013 3:18:53 AM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote:
http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/Mountai...west-white.pdf Key conclusion: The findings from this study reinforce results from previous research that certain impacts to mountain bike trails, especially width, are compa- rable or less than hiking or multiple-use trails, and significantly less than impacts to equestrian or off-highway vehicle trails. Note: Data for the study were collected from 319 sample points gathered from 162.3 miles of mountain bike trails in five common ecological regions of the southwest United States. Junk science. Not worth the paper it's printed on. Not that you would know the difference. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
WHOOPS: more science mike won't like
On Thursday, August 8, 2013 2:40:12 PM UTC+1, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2013 3:18:53 AM UTC-7, I love Mike wrote: http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/Mountai...west-white.pdf Key conclusion: The findings from this study reinforce results from previous research that certain impacts to mountain bike trails, especially width, are compa- rable or less than hiking or multiple-use trails, and significantly less than impacts to equestrian or off-highway vehicle trails. Note: Data for the study were collected from 319 sample points gathered from 162.3 miles of mountain bike trails in five common ecological regions of the southwest United States. Junk science. Not worth the paper it's printed on. Not that you would know the difference. Nor would you ... as a promulgator of non-peer-reviewed, non-factually-verified and opinion-based pieces. Talk about hypocrisy. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
WHOOPS: more science mike won't like
Hahaha. Well said.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
WHOOPS: more science mike won't like
Whatever Vandeman
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
WHOOPS: more science mike won't like
And your evidence for saying its junk science? Why don't you write an article in the journal in response? That's what real scientists do when they disagree with research.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Whoops!! | atriage[_6_] | Racing | 0 | October 20th 11 11:27 PM |
Whoops, take two | [email protected] | Racing | 0 | September 14th 07 03:57 AM |
Whoops | [email protected] | Racing | 2 | August 26th 07 03:11 PM |
Whoops! I done it again! | Paul Boyd | UK | 0 | June 25th 06 06:58 PM |
Mike Murray - See Blood Thinner Question Below - Mike Murray White Courtesy Phone - Calling Mike Murray, M.D. | Leave It To Beaver | Racing | 0 | April 13th 05 04:30 AM |