Closing the discussion after reply

I asked Dr. Antoon Meesters (AM), who is a theoretical physicist by education and a theoretical meteorologist by profession, to reply to the reaction of Makarieva and Gorshkov (M&G) to our earlier paper (Stigter and Meesters). To all the points we made there, it was particularly to just some of these theoretical objections that we had, that M&G reacted. Being an experimental physicist by education myself, I can very well follow AM’s didactically very sound reasoning in his reply and I support it wholeheartedly. Against our policies, I am forwarding this to all that received the original M&G reaction, that was written as if we had done them any injustice. That, I think, was not the case.

With AM’s reply, that has also been posted under the topic where we published our earlier paper and the reaction ("Needs for agrometeorological solutions to farming problems"), we want to close the discussion on our website. We are sure that it will be continued elsewhere, although not all places where the BPT was offered were finding it of sufficient merits in its original form. In fact, as an agrometeorologist by profession I would only be too happy if improved versions would be physically more acceptable and its acceptation would go well beyond wishful thinking. Because it would be of great help in our other strong arguments in favor of afforestation, forest protection and the support of all forms of tree growing in agriculture.

Kees Stigter