John, thanks for the useful feedback on the article, and the links to relevant information.

I agree that my sentence linking weather and climate to network theory is weak, and so I took it out.

Regarding the scheduling of the articles, I'm fine with your idea of waiting to publish the first article until I have some followup material in hand. This also works for me for a different reason, which is that I'd prefer to let this one take a rest, and then approach it for one more round of revisions -- especially after I get the feedback from my non-scientist reviewers.

Already I have gotten some useful feedback from three people so far:

> ...the topic is interesting as hell (esp. The algorithms which prove themselves by generating leaves) and it's clear and entertaining.

> I am not strong in my comprehension of science or math, and this was intelligible, clear and often funny. ... [He could can see that:] ... this is a valuable project.

> I like the whimsical tone you take, and I pretty much understood all the science about reaction networks, so well done. [He also suggests:] .. that you flesh out a little more about the climate change and sustainable development topic. If you mentioned a few stats about climate change that might catch the reader's eye.

John sorry for the delay on this article. There was a definite scope creep (and a huge number of revisions), because I was trying to answer, for myself at least, the question "What's it all about, Azimuth?" (To the tune of Alfie.) I wanted to hit on all the main points of the Azimuth project, in a general and qualitative way, and to have the emphases correctly aligned with what are goals are. If anyone sees topics that are missing or out of kilter there, please chime in.

As indicated by John's comment about my sentence, and the third comment above, there is one area for clarification:

What is the relationship between the Azimuth project, and climate science and modelling? Recently John I saw that you said that the Azimuth project would be focusing on network theory, because that's where most of the activity here is right now. In a sense I was trying to shoe-horn climate science into the picture, by talking about the possibility that network theory could eventually be applicable to the networks which comprise the climate system. But clearly I was reaching for this one. I'm hoping that there will be some way to integrate the perspectives of network theory, "green mathematics", and climate science in an Azimuth project outlook, even if for the time being our work is focusing on network theory. We may need to sleep on these questions for some time.

Also as regarding climate modelling, I at least hold out the hope that we will be able at some point to drum up enough interest to start another climate modelling programming seminar. So I included a reference to our past climate modelling efforts, as a subordinate point, in the article. For this purpose, we could really use some agenda points on what models would be good to tackle next, and a software development strategy for getting there.

Finally, regarding your points John about the timing of the blog articles. I have every intention of writing a bunch of them, and have an outline of the next few of them to come -- that is why I ended this one with a confident promise. It makes perfect sense that from your point of view you don't want to risk publishing half of a promise. So the solution is, we'll wait, until I have buffered up enough material that you feel comfortable starting it, and I feel comfortable with the completion status of the _first_ article. The reason why I belabor that one is that this is my main chance in life to publish a brochure style article for the Azimuth project -- something that can be used to stump for the Azimuth project in beer halls across the world -- so I don't want to rush this one out.

But as for the followup articles, without making any concrete timing promises (since I do have a job etc.), I can say that I will do my best to get them out.

Thanks and Best Regards