Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

If you took a scientific poll of people in premodern times, the vast majority of them would have told you the world was flat. You'd probably be able to duplicate that research time and again, and probably get other scientists to replicate the same or similar results. You've followed the scientific method....

Depends on how ar back you go:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russell.html
..."It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters--Leukippos and Demokritos for example--by the time of Eratosthenes (3 c. BC), followed by Crates(2 c. BC), Strabo (3 c. BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans."...

Originally Posted by The Rani

Scientific method is a well-established concept. Look it up.

It is a bit hard to do a controlled double blind experiment on global warming. There is only one earth that is easily accessible. So anyone who believes that you can't "prove" global warming unless you can do a controlled double-blind experiment will never be convinced, because such proof isn't possible.

That means that scientists need to look at correlations and associations. Here, the evidence is quite strong and frightening.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

It is a bit hard to do a controlled double blind experiment on global warming.

The double-blind applies to experiments on persons. One cannot 'double-blind' natural phenomena, since the natural world is not aware it is being experimented on in the first place. Just a pedantic quibble (though I understand some people here like those kind of things).

That means that scientists need to look at correlations and associations.

The lack of ability to do large-scale experiment in no way alleviates the need for rigor. Arguably, it increases that need.
However, 'experimentation' is not a necessary step to the scientific method. One need merely find some means of comparing one's hypothesis (via predictions made using it) with data independent of the hypothesis with the goal of either falsifying or tentatively confirming the hypothesis.

As regards the AGW models, they can be very easily tested in a scientifically-rigorous manner. One need only take any particular model and make a prediction off it. Then compare the real world the model's prediction. If the model does not adequately match what happened in the real world, it is wrong. It can be revised (that is, a new hypothesis generated), and then a new prediction made off that hypothesis to be tested against a new dataset. And so forth until one has a model that predicts.

The reason AGW climate models so far have failed to stand up to the question of scientific rigor is that the datasets against which they are tested are the sets by which they were created. So far none have succeeded in successfully predicting anything which they hadn't been told ahead of time. That's not science. At least, not good science.

And the predictions of models which have yet to be demonstrated to have good predictive power isn't 'evidence' in any meaningful sense.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Wow, really? What "research" showed that the world was flat?

This should be interesting.

My hypothetical study would only measure opinion, not whether those opinions were fact-based.

Originally Posted by radind

Depends on how ar back you go:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russell.html
..."It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters--Leukippos and Demokritos for example--by the time of Eratosthenes (3 c. BC), followed by Crates(2 c. BC), Strabo (3 c. BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans."...

Well, indeed, if you limited the subject sample enough, you could get any kind of results you wanted.

I never intended to limit my sample to "educated Greeks and Romans of the sixth century BCE and later."

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

It is a bit hard to do a controlled double blind experiment on global warming. There is only one earth that is easily accessible. So anyone who believes that you can't "prove" global warming unless you can do a controlled double-blind experiment will never be convinced, because such proof isn't possible.

That means that scientists need to look at correlations and associations. Here, the evidence is quite strong and frightening.

Indeed, and plenty of good scientific study doesn't involve controlled double blind experiments at all.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

As regards the AGW models, they can be very easily tested in a scientifically-rigorous manner. One need only take any particular model and make a prediction off it. Then compare the real world the model's prediction. If the model does not adequately match what happened in the real world, it is wrong. It can be revised (that is, a new hypothesis generated), and then a new prediction made off that hypothesis to be tested against a new dataset. And so forth until one has a model that predicts.

The reason AGW climate models so far have failed to stand up to the question of scientific rigor is that the datasets against which they are tested are the sets by which they were created. So far none have succeeded in successfully predicting anything which they hadn't been told ahead of time. That's not science. At least, not good science.

And the predictions of models which have yet to be demonstrated to have good predictive power isn't 'evidence' in any meaningful sense.

It's not clear to me that the models have "failed" to any extent that would lead to throwing out the hypothesis.

In any case, we are all being told to reduce our carbon footprints (in various ways) in an effort to reduce global warming. Is it your considered opinion that these efforts are harmful? If so, in what ways?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The double-blind applies to experiments on persons. One cannot 'double-blind' natural phenomena, since the natural world is not aware it is being experimented on in the first place. Just a pedantic quibble (though I understand some people here like those kind of things)... (snip)

The reason AGW climate models so far have failed to stand up to the question of scientific rigor is that the datasets against which they are tested are the sets by which they were created. So far none have succeeded in successfully predicting anything which they hadn't been told ahead of time. That's not science. At least, not good science.

And the predictions of models which have yet to be demonstrated to have good predictive power isn't 'evidence' in any meaningful sense.

I'd agree that certain methods which would be nice to use can't be used or do not apply in all circumstances. Double blind experiments are appropriate if the subject of the experiment is aware that he is the subject of an experiment and this awareness could effect outcome. This isn't a concern for climate systems. Experimental methods difficult with climate systems as we have no control planet and the scientists cannot alter the planet to test hypothesis.

Another problem with climate science is the 'noise' of weather riding on top of the 'signal' of climate. You can't take short term observations very seriously. You have to look at long term trends rather than today's weather report. As computer modeling of weather is a relatively new tool, there hasn't been time to do predict and wait.

Still, there are millions of years of data. Sure, it would be nice to have a several decades more. The next several decades will be interesting to say the least. Old data says vanishing ice caps prompt a four degree temperature jump and mass extinctions. Being able to observe this first hand could be very informative.

But waiting for several more decades of data to confirm the millions of years we already have might involve some risk.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

It's not clear to me that the models have "failed" to any extent that would lead to throwing out the hypothesis.

When a prediction made by a hypothesis fails to correspond to a new dataset, that is called a 'falsification'. Doing that rigorously, openly, and repeatably is what the scientific method is all about. Thus far what we've seen is models made off historical datasets run against other datasets (be they historical or recent), modified to actually fit both the old and the new, and then treated as if they had been confirmed. Obviously, such is not the case. The original (pre-revision) hypothesis had been falsified by a new dataset, and a new (as-yet untested) hypothesis generated.

'Throw out' and 'modify' both mean fundamentally the same thing in science -- the hypothesis was not correct. As far as I can find in what prevails as scientific literature on AGW these days, no model has actually been confirmed in the scientifically-rigorous sense of the word.

In any case, we are all being told to reduce our carbon footprints (in various ways) in an effort to reduce global warming. Is it your considered opinion that these efforts are harmful? If so, in what ways?

Well, as a start, the fact that historically cold has proven to kill people and species pretty effectively and to crash civilizations periodically, whereas warm tends to do things like help food grow (oh yeah, and CO2 concentrations are awesome for that, too) -- it seems to me that the concern over warming in general is misplaced. That's one thing off the top of my head...

But the main problem I have with the AGW crowd is as I have stated elsewhere: the scientific method ranks up with writing in fundamentality to human thriving. The AGW-pushers are attacking science (frequently in the name of the very thing they attack, but that sort of tactic is nothing new in politics) to support a political cause. As Boomers -- as a group -- tend to do, they seem perfectly willing to destroy whatever gets in their way to get what they want.

Justin -you've been living in a cold climate for a while, so your statement that cold kills while increased warmth helps things to grow, makes perfect sense - from that standpoint.

I'm here in the High Desert and am here to tell you that increased warmth can kill living plants - entire species of useful plants - and birds and animals, especially those already living on the edge. We lost almost the entire stock of pinon nut trees a few years back to a parasite infestation that killed them because they were already stressed by increasing heat and dryness. Heat, out here, means drought, and drought is greatly to be feared west of the 180. Always has been.

Also, increased heat is leading to more and bigger, nastier wildfires, especially with the woods as dry as they've been lately.

Now, this isn't to say these things are human-caused; they may be due to natural cycles such as the sort that killed or drove out the Anasazi circa 1300. But they are decidedly a clear and present danger in hot dry climates.

Just FYI,

Pat in New Mexico.

Pat,

I lived in Chandler for a few years back in the olden times of the late 80s. We left after the summer that it hit 125 (of course, I thought that was unbearably hot until I got to Kalimantan Timur and spent several days at 122 with 100% humidity). Of course, heat is no good -- in arid places. Although aridity itself is a function more of geography (those mountains surrounding you keep out what rain you don't get down that way) than of temperature. Antarctica is pretty damn arid, too. But heat (as the aforementioned jungle-covered Kalimantan strongly hints) without aridity is a pretty damn good thing for life.

Anyway, all the estimates of rising 'average global temperature' show a higher low temperature (generally they that nights in Siberia and northern Canada would be somewhat less frosty) rather than higher highs in the already hot regions. And while heat kills the old and the weak (apologies to both those groups; that's just the way things are); cold kills off food, without which everyone who doesn't die right off gets weak themselves.

---

on a personal note: I hate hot weather. Hate it. I much preferred standing around outside for two hours in -20 waiting to get my tires changed to even the ten-minute walk from the (air-conditioned) barracks to the (air-conditioned) in the 122-degree jungle. So my advocacy of warm-as-better is totally not a question of personal comfort...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Pat,

I lived in Chandler for a few years back in the olden times of the late 80s. We left after the summer that it hit 125 (of course, I thought that was unbearably hot until I got to Kalimantan Timur and spent several days at 122 with 100% humidity). Of course, heat is no good -- in arid places. Although aridity itself is a function more of geography (those mountains surrounding you keep out what rain you don't get down that way) than of temperature. Antarctica is pretty damn arid, too. But heat (as the aforementioned jungle-covered Kalimantan strongly hints) without aridity is a pretty damn good thing for life.

Anyway, all the estimates of rising 'average global temperature' show a higher low temperature (generally they that nights in Siberia and northern Canada would be somewhat less frosty). And while heat kills the old and the weak (apologies to both those groups; that's just the way things are); cold kills off food, without which everyone who doesn't die right off gets weak themselves.

Aren't there also concerns about more tropical conditions moving into the temperate zones? More mosquitoes, malaria, etc.?

I'll take my hard freezes. We may have short summers here, but you all can have the poisonous snakes and fire ants.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Pat,

I lived in Chandler for a few years back in the olden times of the late 80s. We left after the summer that it hit 125 (of course, I thought that was unbearably hot until I got to Kalimantan Timur and spent several days at 122 with 100% humidity). Of course, heat is no good -- in arid places. Although aridity itself is a function more of geography (those mountains surrounding you keep out what rain you don't get down that way) than of temperature. Antarctica is pretty damn arid, too. But heat (as the aforementioned jungle-covered Kalimantan strongly hints) without aridity is a pretty damn good thing for life.

Anyway, all the estimates of rising 'average global temperature' show a higher low temperature (generally they that nights in Siberia and northern Canada would be somewhat less frosty) rather than higher highs in the already hot regions. And while heat kills the old and the weak (apologies to both those groups; that's just the way things are); cold kills off food, without which everyone who doesn't die right off gets weak themselves.

---

on a personal note: I hate hot weather. Hate it. I much preferred standing around outside for two hours in -20 waiting to get my tires changed to even the ten-minute walk from the (air-conditioned) barracks to the (air-conditioned) in the 122-degree jungle. So my advocacy of warm-as-better is totally not a question of personal comfort...

Oh, wow. Like Death Valley in July. Anyway - Albuquerque's climate hasn't killed me yet! It may have made me stronger.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

'Throw out' and 'modify' both mean fundamentally the same thing in science -- the hypothesis was not correct. As far as I can find in what prevails as scientific literature on AGW these days, no model has actually been confirmed in the scientifically-rigorous sense of the word.

No science as young as computer modeling of climate is perfect. You advance any sort of modeling system through incremental improvements. There is a large distinction between a model being a bit better than the one that came before, and not being able to build a model that matches reality at all. Modern climate science is in the incremental improvement stage. To abandon incremental improvement would be to abandon science.

What you are doing is insisting that methods which do not and cannot apply to his sort of problem are necessary to do science that you will accept. This doesn't mean science isn't happening. It just means you aren't accepting it. When you are throwing out an entire peer reviewed field of science, you might want to consider if you are treading the same ground as those basing their understanding of biology on the Bible.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Well, as a start, the fact that historically cold has proven to kill people and species pretty effectively and to crash civilizations periodically, whereas warm tends to do things like help food grow (oh yeah, and CO2 concentrations are awesome for that, too) -- it seems to me that the concern over warming in general is misplaced. That's one thing off the top of my head...

But the main problem I have with the AGW crowd is as I have stated elsewhere: the scientific method ranks up with writing in fundamentality to human thriving. The AGW-pushers are attacking science (frequently in the name of the very thing they attack, but that sort of tactic is nothing new in politics) to support a political cause. As Boomers -- as a group -- tend to do, they seem perfectly willing to destroy whatever gets in their way to get what they want.

CoS's example of forest problems in the American west isn't unusual these days. Insect populations grow and spread faster than the predator populations that keep them in check. All over the far north (Alaska and Canada) you will find major tree kills. Healthy forests will have a good mix of trees so when one species has problems the other will dominate for a while. There are forests where most of the species are facing some degree of threat.

Grizzly bears might provide an example of how messy things might get. In Yellowstone, there are a lot of happy people pleased with how the grizzly population has been restored to its usual place in nature after decades of feeding on tourist handouts and garbage. Just looking at recent population trends, you would get the impressions that the bears are doing just fine.

Thing is, many of their food supplies are under some degree of threat. Their favorite fish prey is battling with a non-native fish recently introduced to the area. Bears have been taking elf calf during a brief hunting season in the spring when the young are to slow to flee, but they are having difficulty competing with and protecting their kill from recently reintroduced wolves.

Moths are a major source of food for bears. In the high summer, bears vanish from tourist areas and head for the high alpine meadows above the tree line. With the weather getting warmer, the tree lines are moving up. At some point there may not be alpine meadows. The moths also migrate. They breed in lowlands, and feed on the mountain tops. In the lowlands, there are farmers with insecticides who don't like moths.

Bears also eat pine nuts, which are under insect attack. The trees go on strike some years. Entire species of pine will not produce seed in a given year, just to keep the population of critters that eat seeds under control. (Who says trees can't be aggressive?)

Now, American bears have as varied a diet as one might ask for. The Chinese Panda, specialized and dependent on one sort of food, is in far more trouble. Still, the potential problems the bears are facing illustrate the sort of instability facing wilderness areas these days. Only two of the Yellowstone grizzly's problems are linked to warming, but man has a hand in all four.

Sure, you don't have to care. You don't have to look at the science in detail. One can hand wave at the way you want things to be from a vast distance. You can ignore the Anthropocene extinctions, and suggest enough will survive for survival.

Some folk less willing to do so.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Oh, wow. Like Death Valley in July.

Almost. The humidity (it was so humid, there was a 20-yard-visibility fog that lasted practically all day every day -- at 122 degrees) made it a lot worse than the blast-furnace feel I remember from Death Valley (or from standing on blacktop in Chandler). But, like, more than a billion people -- and countless species of flora and fauna -- live and thrive there.

---

When you are throwing out an entire peer reviewed field of science...

emphasis added to illustrate my point. Science isn't about review by peers. It is about, as mentioned above, open, repeatable, rigorous testing and falsification of hypotheses based on independent datasets. Peer review does not accomplish -- in fact, is not even necessarily equipped to accomplish -- this. What peer review does do, on the other hand, is help enable the unprincipled to substitute Consensus for the scientific method.

What you are doing is insisting that methods which do not and cannot apply to his sort of problem are necessary to do science that you will accept.

Well, if your 'science' cannot be treated with the methods of open, repeatable, rigorous testing against independent datasets, then it sort of damns itself...
Fortunately, though, as much as some people may wish otherwise, the field of 'climate science' most certainly can and has been (and, certainly, continues to be) approached via the scientific method. It's just that the AGW hypotheses keep getting falsified by the independent data. So instead the AGW proponents are reduced to -- as you did above -- claiming 'exceptional' status for their field.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Science isn't about review by peers. It is about, as mentioned above, open, repeatable, rigorous testing and falsification of hypotheses based on independent datasets. Peer review does not accomplish -- in fact, is not even necessarily equipped to accomplish -- this. What peer review does do, on the other hand, is help enable the unprincipled to substitute Consensus for the scientific method.

Well, if your 'science' cannot be treated with the methods of open, repeatable, rigorous testing against independent datasets, then it sort of damns itself...
Fortunately, though, as much as some people may wish otherwise, the field of 'climate science' most certainly can and has been (and, certainly, continues to be) approached via the scientific method. It's just that the AGW hypotheses keep getting falsified by the independent data. So instead the AGW proponents are reduced to -- as you did above -- claiming 'exceptional' status for their field.

What peer review does is provide a bit of quality control. A while ago, when you would occasionally quote data to support your position, the data you provided was seldom peer reviewed, sometimes coming from tin foil hat land, sometimes from sources obviously financed by corporations with agendas. These days, few corporations are openly using public relations to fight the science. Most have backed off their earlier efforts pushing economic agendas. You seem willing to soldier on?

What data is being excluded? We have one planet, which means one data set. (Well, models of Venus and Mars are helpful in exploring extremes. In fact, the hot atmosphere of Venus was a major wake up call. Still, Venus and Mars don't address the specifics of Earth's situation very well. Studying Earth is still the best way to study Earth.) Your call for independent data sets seems to be a call for something that isn't available. You continue to arbitrarily dismiss a lot of hard work, a lot of data, correlated by very capable people. Seriously, what has not been used that is available?

Do you deny that the current models are in incremental improvement mode, rather than their not matching the data set at all? Do you deny that science doesn't throw away anything not perfect, that science refines by repeated trial and error?

The notion that one gives up if the first result isn't perfect is absurd.

Bob,

Maybe there's a terminology breakdown. As regards hypothesis-testing, 'independent' datasets are one not used to generate the hypothesis. That is, you can only test a hypothesis by sizing it up against something it hasn't seen yet, not by comparing it to what it was built off.

For example, a model that was generated off 20th-century climate data could be tested against 19th-century climate data. That is, it would be run with the 19th century initial conditions and would 'predict' the 19th-century climate. If it did, the hypothesis that the model represents could be considered 'experimentally confirmed'. If not, it would be 'experimentally falsified'.
One thing to do (a very scientific thing, btw), were a model to have been falsified in such a way, would be to revise the model such that it correctly predicted 19th-century data as well as 20th. But that new model at that point would be untested. You would need to repeat the experiment outlined above, testing against, for example, 18th century climate data. And the predictions of the model compared to the dataset would again be used to confirm or falsify.

Those are examples; adjust period size to the appropriate scale for what you are trying to study.

As a parenthetical, the only climate datasets we really have are recent ones. Everything from further back than recordkeeping goes is reconstruction of climate data from other data (tree rings, glacial CO2 profiles, etc..). So in addition to the need to test hypotheses against independent data, there's also a need to justify the algorithms used to generate the data. But that's a whole other, different, field. For now, it's worthwhile simply to remember that the question exists.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Bob,

Maybe there's a terminology breakdown. As regards hypothesis-testing, 'independent' datasets are one not used to generate the hypothesis. That is, you can only test a hypothesis by sizing it up against something it hasn't seen yet, not by comparing it to what it was built off.

For example, a model that was generated off 20th-century climate data could be tested against 19th-century climate data. That is, it would be run with the 19th century initial conditions and would 'predict' the 19th-century climate. If it did, the hypothesis that the model represents could be considered 'experimentally confirmed'. If not, it would be 'experimentally falsified'.

One thing to do (a very scientific thing, btw), were a model to have been falsified in such a way, would be to revise the model such that it correctly predicted 19th-century data as well as 20th. But that new model at that point would be untested. You would need to repeat the experiment outlined above, testing against, for example, 18th century climate data. And the predictions of the model compared to the dataset would again be used to confirm or falsify.

Those are examples; adjust period size to the appropriate scale for what you are trying to study.

As a parenthetical, the only climate datasets we really have are recent ones. Everything from further back than recordkeeping goes is reconstruction of climate data from other data (tree rings, glacial CO2 profiles, etc..). So in addition to the need to test hypotheses against independent data, there's also a need to justify the algorithms used to generate the data. But that's a whole other, different, field. For now, it's worthwhile simply to remember that the question exists.

It's not a question of terminology. It is difference in objectives and methodology. You are using cute word games and misapplied information theory to throw away as much data hostile to your conclusion as possible. You are good enough at it, at least in your own mind, that you have convinced yourself that you can throw away just about all of the data. In this, you remind me of the fundamentalists pushing 'creation science.'

Scientists try to include as much of the data as possible in their systems. They do not look for excuses to ignore the data. They are not impressed by alternate theories based upon thin air.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

It's not a question of terminology. It is difference in objectives and methodology.

Fair enough. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you reject that in favor of being explicitly non-science -- that is, with objectives other than determining the verifiably-in-accord-with-reality and methodologies other than repeatable, verifiable, objective testing. I suppose that's your call, though I intend to continue offering the same benefit of the doubt to everyone else who doesn't actively reject it.

You are using cute word games and misapplied information theory to throw away as much data hostile to your conclusion as possible.

O rly?

How about a single example of the 'data hostile to my conclusion' (whatever you imagine that to be) that you see me as having discarded?

Scientists try to include as much of the data as possible in their systems. They do not look for excuses to ignore the data. They are not impressed by alternate theories based upon thin air.

Exactly. That's why I keep pointing out that the AGW hypothesis (at least, as pushed by its major proponents these days) is not scientific.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

How about a single example of the 'data hostile to my conclusion' (whatever you imagine that to be) that you see me as having discarded?

Hmm.... If we're playing cute word games, I'd have to switch from 'discarded' to 'disparaged'. Data from the past needs to be compared against the future. Data from this century needs to be compared to the last century. Sediment cores, ice cores, tree rings and other methods are not adequately blessed. Your thrust of the last several posts has been to disparage the work of the professionals without providing conflicting data or proposing an alternate system that fits the existing data better.

This is very much what I see when encountering creation science.

I note, no examples. Even of somewhere that I 'disparaged' contrary data. You might have a hard time finding those (just a heads-up), since I've not done it.

Anyway, it is not science that insists on an up-front explanation for everything; that's religion. And as for comparisons with creationists, I would simply contrast their faith in their priests and sacred texts with the AGW crowds' faith in the Professional (so well illustrated above). Science is questioning, not trusting; it is the one rigorous test that falsifies, not the ten thousand equally rigorous ones that failed to.

Backing up here....

Originally Posted by Justin '77

But the main problem I have with the AGW crowd is as I have stated elsewhere: the scientific method ranks up with writing in fundamentality to human thriving. The AGW-pushers are attacking science (frequently in the name of the very thing they attack, but that sort of tactic is nothing new in politics) to support a political cause. As Boomers -- as a group -- tend to do, they seem perfectly willing to destroy whatever gets in their way to get what they want.

What political cause do you see the "AGW pushers" supporting?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

What political cause do you see the "AGW pushers" supporting?

Power over others, of course. Remaking society in their own image.

They're hardly the only ones, though... It's all very Boomerish.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Aren't there also concerns about more tropical conditions moving into the temperate zones? More mosquitoes, malaria, etc.?

I'll take my hard freezes. We may have short summers here, but you all can have the poisonous snakes and fire ants.

When I lived in Houston, fireants sucked. Give me the cold arctic air masses anytime over those things anytime. As for the snakes, ummm snake tastes like chicken.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

When I lived in Houston, fireants sucked. Give me the cold arctic air masses anytime over those things anytime. As for the snakes, ummm snake tastes like chicken.

Is it also true that, in Texas, the cockroaches are three inches long... and they fly???

That's what somebody told me back in the early '80s.