Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Celebrating 10000 Hits

Today marks a milestone for Sowell’s Law Blog, having just turned 10,000 hits along with 4,000 unique visitors.

In the blogging world, one never knows if anyone will ever read a word that gets published. Or if anyone does, who they are and where they are (although I am aware that there exists tracing technology for that). The pace of hits is increasing, now turning about 1500 per month, up from 1000 just five months ago.

As I wrote a few months ago on the occasion of 3,000 hits, I do not write this to attract the masses. Still, it is very gratifying to see that 4,000 people from 76 countries have stopped by. My interests in blogging tend to focus on the areas where the law and technology intersect, especially technology that encompasses energy, climate change, and engineering malpractice.

The laws of California also play a large role, as I am licensed in California. However, the federal laws also catch my attention.

I have noticed that the hits increase just before and after I make one of my speeches, which usually are made to audiences of engineers. I have four speeches scheduled for 2009, with a presentation to American Institute of Chemical Engineers at their annual meeting in Nashville, Tennessee on November 11, 2009. The presentation's topic is California's Global Warming Solutions Act: What Chemical Engineers Should Know. The presentation will be published in the meeting's proceedings.

One theme on SLB is that of global climate change, and man’s role in any changes. As my postings indicate, I am of the opinion that man has nothing to do with any global climate change. Furthermore, there is inadequate data on prior temperatures and weather phenomena, so that any comparisons to the past are pure guesswork. The evidence shows that gross misrepresentations have been made (deliberately? Or negligently?) as to the historic temperature record, thereby seriously undermining any claims that “man did it” and “carbon is killing us.” Fundamentals of engineering, physics, and process control dictate that all of the climate-change science is false. Actual, measureable events bear this out, whether they be fewer hurricanes, colder winters, shorter growing seasons, colder oceans, sea levels not rising, polar ice caps growing, or no “hot spot” in the atmosphere. The global-warming crowd has nothing to point to that vindicates their dire predictions, except for ever-increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. I am, of course, aware that my position is contrary to that of many leading scientists. I could be wrong, but then several aspects of long-proven physics must then be wrong, too. The evidence shows that CO2 is not warming the earth.

Another favorite theme is Peak Oil, or rather, the Peak Oil Myth. This is a fascinating study in hoodwinking the few.

Yet a third favorite theme is the foolishness of nuclear power plants, due to their exorbitant high costs, ever-present danger of nuclear radiation, long-lasting toxic legacy of spent nuclear fuel isotopes, and the grossly unfair and disproportionate impact of their high electric power prices on the lower income echelons of society.

A fourth theme is the advent and growing presence of renewable energy systems, from solar, wind, wave, geothermal, bio-based, and ocean current. It is fascinating to me to read comments by others that such renewables are bit players, and will never be mainstream. The actual evidence shows that to be wrong, as renewable energy in California comprises more than 14 percent of all power generated and sold in the state. Only natural gas provides more energy. That is not true for all states, but in the largest state by population, that clearly shows that renewables play a significant role. The key to much greater use of renewables is large-scale energy storage.

Thank you to all who stop by here, and especially to those who leave a comment.


Anonymous said...

Roger, I´ve been reading and talking to of some of my old defense lawyer friends in Texas about the Copenhagen Climate Treaty that Obama is all fired up to sign in Dec. I´ve read through a large part of the draft that they have on line at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/smsn/ngo/157.pdf
It seems it could be what some, who may be a bit paranoid, are calling a step toward a world governing body, if not that, it looks really close to being a world tax collector and "redistributor" of wealth.
I´d love to see your take on it, especially the “enforcement” section, in your blog when you have the time. Think it´s time to go international in scope? You have the readers. It´s almost 2 mg of pdf file with its own vocabulary list in the back, so it gets to be laborious to wade through. It does have a lot of pretty charts and graphs though: )
When I first scanned though it I found Green Peace and Dr. David Suzuki ( I still like his stuff on astronomy though) listed on the last page so I suspected I wasn´t going to like what I read
Joe Estep

Roger Sowell said...

Thanks, Joe. I have not had the opportunity to read the draft treaty, but I will do as you suggest and post an article on SLB.

Ellie in Belfast said...

Congrats on your traffic Roger. I really like what you write

Roger Sowell said...

Ellie, thank you. I'm having fun, and very much looking forward to the next 10,000.