Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar
So you have two choices (and only 2):
1.) The study was not done correctly – so the data is meaningless, or
2.) The study was done correctly, in which case the raw data needs to be statistically analyzed by inserting back into the environment - this is done by multiplying the data by a time factor and by the percentage factor of how much of the lake was covered by the study.
|
I have made no personal claims about the validity of the study. I find it one of many interesting points of reference.
So you have two choices (and only 2):
1) If you disagree with it, then do not attempt to use it in some manner to support your position, as this just makes you look silly and irrational.
2) If you agree with it, and choose to apply some method to extrapolate data from it, be prepared for other people to point out why your conclusions, and therefore your overall position, are incorrect.