|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain Bikers' New Year's Resolution: Start Telling the Truth!
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 17:32:17 -0500, "Marty"
wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message .. . The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. July 3, 2004 Troll troll wiggle wiggle jerk jerk..... Gotcha again............ It's like shooting fish in a barrel. You guys are sooo easy! Marty === 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 |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Too bad Mike Vandman can't answer the tough questions...
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:47:41 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:37:17 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:58:21 GMT, Michael Halliwell 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. I have an MA in math from Harvard. What about you? Have you finished grade school yet? Besides, this is biology, not math. It's amazing how you keep coming back for more punishment, no matter how many times you get whipped. === 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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
More Vande-Garbage, can't he get it right?
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... It's interesting that you guys NEVER quote a single statement of mine that you think is not correct. Because then you could easily be refuted. It's easier to spout vague generalities, isn't it? After 12 years, not one mountain biker has ever been able to find a single incorrect statement in my papers. If you could have done so, you would have done so long ago. It's the same reason you are afraid ot use your real name: people would find out you are full of it. I did Mikey. About a year and a half ago. Google it. Answered you point for point, showed the flaws in your assumptions and your reasoning. And your response........? "Yawn" "Did you say something?" You're not looking for dialogue. You don't care about wildlife or wilderness. You're simply a troll seeking to incite for your own pathetic reasons. And a liar. Vande-Garbage. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain Bikers' New Year's Resolution: Start Telling the Truth!
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:40:22 -0500, "S Curtiss" wrote: It is OBVIOUS you have not formed your OPINIONS through the process of actual research. You have fabricated research BECAUSE of your opinions. You have taken others' work out of context, ignored their conclusions and reinterpreted their findings using your OPINIONS as a gauge of any and all information they have developed. You have done NO actual research beyond regurgitating what others have done through the filter of your own viewpoint in an effort to give foundation to your OPINIONS. Your PhD does not give you creative license on a scientific level and your attempts to slander me or any other individual that points out the flaws of your OPINIONS by calling us names or eluding to our intelligence is simple misdirection away from your own lack of credibility. Irrelevant. If you can't find anything specifically wrong with what I said, then you are in the same boat: you have to admit that you can't find anything I said that is actually WRONG! Vague generalities are meaningless and don't cut it. QED Your choice to be ignorant of past discussions (Google search "vandeman") is yours to make and does nothing but further decay your own statements. You can't fake honesty. You can't find a single inaccurate statement in my paper, or you would be able to quote it right now. The fact is, you CAN'T! QED. === All you have done is taken others' research and claim them to be wrong in thier conclusions then substitute your OPINIONS as proof. You have done no research yourself beyond read what others have done. When you come across a piece of information you can claim as support for your OPINIONS, you pull it away from the context of the whole and cite it as proof with no regard for the actual conclusions of the original author. Concerning "Wilson / Seney", you wrote: "But it has a number of defects that call its conclusions into question. The authors used a "rainfall simulator" to measure "sediment made available" by the various treatments. They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment yield produced by the simulated rainstorms at the downslope end of each plot", which they claim correlates with erosion" (they don't say what the correlation coefficient is). This doesn't seem like a good measure of erosion." You deride their process and findings with NO contrary research of YOUR OWN to support your supposition. You merely attack the findings through your OPINION. You also throw in your own variable (distance) as well as deride the findings because variables you claim exist were not accounted for (sideways displaced soil, for instance).: "The authors also ignored the relative distances that various trail users typically travel (for example, bikers generally travel several times as far as hikers, multiplying their impacts accordingly) and the additional impacts due to the mountain bike bringing new people to the trails that otherwise would not have been there (the same omission is true of all other studies, except Wisdom et al (2004)). They do say "Trail use in the last ten years has seen a dramatic increase in off-road bicycles" (p.86), but they don't incorporate this fact into their comparison. In addition, there is no recognition of different styles of riding and their effect on erosion. We don't know if the mountain bikers rode in representative fashion, or, more likely, rode more gently, with less skidding, acceleration, braking, and turning. There was also no recognition that soil displaced sideways (rather than downhill) also constitutes erosion damage. It seems likely that they underestimated the true impacts of mountain biking. I don't think that these results are reliable." You include "distance" as a "holy grail" while excluding "time". Cyclists may cover more distance, but are also less likely to linger and trample in a finite area. Cyclists cover the distance in less time and are out of the area while hikers remain longer. Since it is you that claim human presence itself is a danger, you exclude the additional time hikers remain as unimportant. You also attack them for "no recognition of different styles of riding and their effect on erosion" which is hysterical itself as YOU make NO distinction between careful riding and wreckless riding. You claim all riding is wreckless despite the mass of information to the contrary! You the close that paragraph with "It seems likely that they underestimated the true impacts of mountain biking. I don't think that these results are reliable." "It seems likely..." and "I don't think..." are nothing but suppositions fabricated from your opinions. You haven't disproved anything. You merely say their results are wrong because they do not fall in line with your view. Again you cite "distance" while ignoring "time" by attacking the findings in the "Chiu / Kriwoken" information: It is apparent he and the authors misstated the implications of the study. If we assume, as they claim, that bikers and hikers have the same impact per mile (which is what they measured), then it follows that mountain bikers have several times the impact of hikers, since they generally travel several times as far. (I haven't found any published statistics, but I have informally collected 72 mountain bikers' ride announcements, which advertise rides of a minimum of 8 miles, an average of 27 miles, and a maximum of 112 miles.) You "haven't found any published statistics..."? yet you make your claim? 8 miles, 27 miles, 112 miles.... And how many hikes are published with similar distances? You don't say. Why is that? If you are going to claim harm by distance, then you should compare the two activities. But you do not do research yourself. That would imply accountability! You merely pull from others and select what you like and attack as "junk" what you don't. How long (time) would a hiker take to cover these distances? How much more damage is done by the hiker's presence by being in the vicinity for that much longer? Why do you ignore this variable but insist on cyclists' distance? You also make the supposition "Besides ignoring distance travelled, there were a number of other defects in the study. The biking that was compared with hiking was apparently not typical mountain biking. It was apparently slower than normal and included no skidding. Bikers who skidded (a normal occurrence) were not compared with hikers." "Apparently not typical..."? "Apparently slower than normal..." These are statements from your OPINIONS. You have no basis to create information and overlay it through their findings. Your OPINION of cyclists' riding is not a scientific variable in which to measure "typical". You insert (a normal occurence) concerning "skidding" as a statement of fact but have nothing beyond your OPINION that all cyclists ride in this way to offer to support the insertion. That is enough. Your fabrications only take existing studies and either support what follows your opinion and discard or deride what doesn't. You have done no actual research beyond reading what others have done and utilize what you like to support your view. You ignore or label as "junk" recent studies (2006) that support the FACT that off-road cycling is comparable to hiking. You ignore or label as "scandal" the FACT that the National Forests, National Parks, Land Managers and others have reviewed the same research (which you have picked apart with your opinions) to come to the conclusion that cycling is a viable (and acceptable) activity with similar comparisons to other allowed activities. The time has come and gone for your type of misinformation and fear-mongering to rule the process of land management. The internet and availability of actual information (not your interpretation of it) has taken the place of a handful of self-proclaimed "know-it-alls" controlling how things are done. Your OPINION of the research (which is all you present in your writings) does not supercede the actual findings. You OPINION of off-road cycling is no measure of the activity or those who engage in it. Your voice has nothing but a hollow ring of "because I say so". That is no longer good enough for those who make decisions when they can read and interpret the actual findings from the actual authors and researchers. Your PhD is no longer a measure of accountability as the authors and researchers you quote are also often accredited. Since they did the research, compiled the findings and formed their conclusions based on their ACTUAL experience, it is only OBVIOUS to take their findings over your interpretation of them. When one these actual researchers gives you a nod of approval for re-interpreting their findings, let us know. When you have verifiable names of environmental researchers or conference attendees that give your opinions a review, let us know. When one of these conferences you attend releases an action plan involving your recommendations, let us know. Otherwise... You have nothing. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Too bad Mike Vandman can't answer the tough questions...
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:47:41 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" wrote: The science of my mathematics conflicts with the science of your psychosis. Mathematics trumps psychosis. You lose. I have an MA in math from Harvard. What about you? Have you finished grade school yet? Besides, this is biology, not math. It's amazing how you keep coming back for more punishment, no matter how many times you get whipped. === Nice ATTEMPT at redirection away from the actual points he made. Attacking his background or intelligence in NO WAY minimizes the statements made by JS. It only highlights your choice to not address them. Your MA has no relevance in the reply since you did not address the points made. Citing where you "earned" your MA holds more embarrassment for Harvard through association rather than give you any credibility since you disregarded his statements in the reply. Attacking character is no substitute for a reply on point. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
More Vande-Garbage, can't he get it right?
"JP" wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote It's interesting that you guys NEVER quote a single statement of mine that you think is not correct. Because then you could easily be refuted. It's easier to spout vague generalities, isn't it? After 12 years, not one mountain biker has ever been able to find a single incorrect statement in my papers. If you could have done so, you would have done so long ago. It's the same reason you are afraid ot use your real name: people would find out you are full of it. I did Mikey. About a year and a half ago. Google it. Answered you point for point, showed the flaws in your assumptions and your reasoning. And your response........? "Yawn" "Did you say something?" You're not looking for dialogue. You don't care about wildlife or wilderness. You're simply a troll seeking to incite for your own pathetic reasons. And a liar. So don't reply to him. Shun him and he'll go away (or at least will be very, very bored if we all ignore him). Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Too bad Mike Vandman can't answer the tough questions...
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... The science of my mathematics conflicts with the science of your psychosis. Mathematics trumps psychosis. You lose. I have an MA in math from Harvard. What about you? Have you finished grade school yet? Besides, this is biology, not math. It's amazing how you keep coming back for more punishment, no matter how many times you get whipped. You haven't figured out that you are fighting to save 0.004% of the environment -- and that assumes you are 100% corrects AND I give you a 100 fold benefit of the doubt about how much land area is actually adversely affected by bike riding, AND ignores any other form or activity that can cause or contribute to the adversity you assert. My math trumps your psychosis. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain Bikers' New Year's Resolution: Start Telling the Truth!
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:39:01 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" wrote: "S Curtiss" wrote in message ... "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message om... The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People -- A Review of the Literature Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. July 3, 2004 This...? Again...? All you have is a persistent insistence that your OPINIONS supercede all other information and research. You have yet to provide any other peer comment or review on these opinions. You have yet to provide anything beyond your OPINION of mountain biking to substantiate your claims. Your OPINIONS continue to run counter to established and defined concepts. You use your OPINIONS to measure all data. It is no wonder REAL experts, REAL scientists You wouldn't know a real scientist if he bit you in the ass. The fact is, no real scientist has found any flaw in my paper yet! (Hint: because there aren't any.) Then give the NAMES of those who endorse your OPINIONS and presentations. Give the names of those who have heard you speak and commented directly on what YOU have said. I'll take one name. One. Mike, why doesn't the Sierra Club endorse your agenda anymore? Two chapters voted long ago to support my human-free habitat proopsal. Those resolutions still stand. Two? That's all? That's a sad legacy, Mr. Vandeman. You can't even get support for your environmentalist agenda from the environmentalists. Very sad indeed. How many chapters are there? You got 2 to go along with you. According to the SC's Website, there are 64 chapters in the USA, and 13 in California. However, getting 2 chapters to go along with your psychosis is astounding to me, especially since your avowed goal flies in the face of the Club's own mission statement -- Explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of the earth. Everything you stand for defies the goal of explore and enjoy, and does virtually nothing to protect. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Mountain Bikers' New Year's Resolution: Start Telling the Truth!
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:42:57 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:40:22 -0500, "S Curtiss" wrote: It is OBVIOUS you have not formed your OPINIONS through the process of actual research. You have fabricated research BECAUSE of your opinions. You have taken others' work out of context, ignored their conclusions and reinterpreted their findings using your OPINIONS as a gauge of any and all information they have developed. You have done NO actual research beyond regurgitating what others have done through the filter of your own viewpoint in an effort to give foundation to your OPINIONS. Your PhD does not give you creative license on a scientific level and your attempts to slander me or any other individual that points out the flaws of your OPINIONS by calling us names or eluding to our intelligence is simple misdirection away from your own lack of credibility. Irrelevant. If you can't find anything specifically wrong with what I said, then you are in the same boat: you have to admit that you can't find anything I said that is actually WRONG! Vague generalities are meaningless and don't cut it. QED Your choice to be ignorant of past discussions (Google search "vandeman") is yours to make and does nothing but further decay your own statements. You can't fake honesty. You can't find a single inaccurate statement in my paper, or you would be able to quote it right now. The fact is, you CAN'T! QED. === All you have done is taken others' research and claim them to be wrong in thier conclusions then substitute your OPINIONS as proof. You have done no research yourself beyond read what others have done. When you come across a piece of information you can claim as support for your OPINIONS, you pull it away from the context of the whole and cite it as proof with no regard for the actual conclusions of the original author. Concerning "Wilson / Seney", you wrote: "But it has a number of defects that call its conclusions into question. The authors used a "rainfall simulator" to measure "sediment made available" by the various treatments. They "[collected] surface runoff and sediment yield produced by the simulated rainstorms at the downslope end of each plot", which they claim correlates with erosion" (they don't say what the correlation coefficient is). This doesn't seem like a good measure of erosion." You deride their process and findings with NO contrary research of YOUR OWN to support your supposition. You merely attack the findings through your OPINION. You also throw in your own variable (distance) as well as deride the findings because variables you claim exist were not accounted for (sideways displaced soil, for instance).: "The authors also ignored the relative distances that various trail users typically travel (for example, bikers generally travel several times as far as hikers, multiplying their impacts accordingly) and the additional impacts due to the mountain bike bringing new people to the trails that otherwise would not have been there (the same omission is true of all other studies, except Wisdom et al (2004)). They do say "Trail use in the last ten years has seen a dramatic increase in off-road bicycles" (p.86), but they don't incorporate this fact into their comparison. In addition, there is no recognition of different styles of riding and their effect on erosion. We don't know if the mountain bikers rode in representative fashion, or, more likely, rode more gently, with less skidding, acceleration, braking, and turning. There was also no recognition that soil displaced sideways (rather than downhill) also constitutes erosion damage. It seems likely that they underestimated the true impacts of mountain biking. I don't think that these results are reliable." You include "distance" as a "holy grail" while excluding "time". Cyclists may cover more distance, but are also less likely to linger and trample in a finite area. Cyclists cover the distance in less time and are out of the area while hikers remain longer. Since it is you that claim human presence itself is a danger, you exclude the additional time hikers remain as unimportant. You also attack them for "no recognition of different styles of riding and their effect on erosion" which is hysterical itself as YOU make NO distinction between careful riding and wreckless riding. You claim all riding is wreckless despite the mass of information to the contrary! You the close that paragraph with "It seems likely that they underestimated the true impacts of mountain biking. I don't think that these results are reliable." "It seems likely..." and "I don't think..." are nothing but suppositions fabricated from your opinions. You haven't disproved anything. You merely say their results are wrong because they do not fall in line with your view. Again you cite "distance" while ignoring "time" by attacking the findings in the "Chiu / Kriwoken" information: It is apparent he and the authors misstated the implications of the study. If we assume, as they claim, that bikers and hikers have the same impact per mile (which is what they measured), then it follows that mountain bikers have several times the impact of hikers, since they generally travel several times as far. (I haven't found any published statistics, but I have informally collected 72 mountain bikers' ride announcements, which advertise rides of a minimum of 8 miles, an average of 27 miles, and a maximum of 112 miles.) You "haven't found any published statistics..."? yet you make your claim? 8 miles, 27 miles, 112 miles.... And how many hikes are published with similar distances? You don't say. Why is that? If you are going to claim harm by distance, then you should compare the two activities. But you do not do research yourself. That would imply accountability! You merely pull from others and select what you like and attack as "junk" what you don't. How long (time) would a hiker take to cover these distances? How much more damage is done by the hiker's presence by being in the vicinity for that much longer? Why do you ignore this variable but insist on cyclists' distance? You also make the supposition "Besides ignoring distance travelled, there were a number of other defects in the study. The biking that was compared with hiking was apparently not typical mountain biking. It was apparently slower than normal and included no skidding. Bikers who skidded (a normal occurrence) were not compared with hikers." "Apparently not typical..."? "Apparently slower than normal..." These are statements from your OPINIONS. You have no basis to create information and overlay it through their findings. Your OPINION of cyclists' riding is not a scientific variable in which to measure "typical". You insert (a normal occurence) concerning "skidding" as a statement of fact but have nothing beyond your OPINION that all cyclists ride in this way to offer to support the insertion. That is enough. Your fabrications only take existing studies and either support what follows your opinion and discard or deride what doesn't. You have done no actual research beyond reading what others have done and utilize what you like to support your view. You ignore or label as "junk" recent studies (2006) that support the FACT that off-road cycling is comparable to hiking. You ignore or label as "scandal" the FACT that the National Forests, National Parks, Land Managers and others have reviewed the same research (which you have picked apart with your opinions) to come to the conclusion that cycling is a viable (and acceptable) activity with similar comparisons to other allowed activities. The time has come and gone for your type of misinformation and fear-mongering to rule the process of land management. The internet and availability of actual information (not your interpretation of it) has taken the place of a handful of self-proclaimed "know-it-alls" controlling how things are done. Your OPINION of the research (which is all you present in your writings) does not supercede the actual findings. You OPINION of off-road cycling is no measure of the activity or those who engage in it. Your voice has nothing but a hollow ring of "because I say so". That is no longer good enough for those who make decisions when they can read and interpret the actual findings from the actual authors and researchers. Your PhD is no longer a measure of accountability as the authors and researchers you quote are also often accredited. Since they did the research, compiled the findings and formed their conclusions based on their ACTUAL experience, it is only OBVIOUS to take their findings over your interpretation of them. When one these actual researchers gives you a nod of approval for re-interpreting their findings, let us know. When you have verifiable names of environmental researchers or conference attendees that give your opinions a review, let us know. When one of these conferences you attend releases an action plan involving your recommendations, let us know. Otherwise... You have nothing. As I said, you can't fake honesty. You can't find a single inaccurate statement in my paper, or you would be able to quote it right now. The fact is, you CAN'T! QED. === 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why Can't Mountain Bikers EVER Tell the Truth? | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 5 | April 22nd 06 01:34 AM |
Why Can't Mountain Bikers EVER Tell the Truth? | Jason | Mountain Biking | 0 | April 20th 06 10:26 AM |
Why Can't Mountain Bikers EVER Tell the Truth? | Jason | Mountain Biking | 0 | April 16th 06 12:53 PM |
Merry Christmas, Mountain Bikers! Here's your New Year's Resolution! | Hellacopter | Mountain Biking | 0 | December 23rd 05 08:21 PM |
Why Can't Mountain Bikers EVER Tell the TRUTH???! | Stephen Baker | Mountain Biking | 21 | May 30th 04 12:00 AM |