My approach has been to take the material published in standard undergraduate textbooks, used on engineering courses throughout the world for at least fifty years, and to derive the atmosphere equations from these first principles. In my naivety, I imagined that, if the fundamental science is correct (it ought to be because it is used to design engines that work and aircraft that fly), and the reasoning is correct (it is presented fully in the paper, inviting criticism), then the conclusions drawn must be correct. This is how I was taught science works. Apparently this was incorrect. Modern science has been displaced by sophistry; an infection caught from the intellectually anemic disciplines of politics and journalism. Apparently, it is not what is said (the validity of the derivation and the quality of data), but who says it, that matters. In other words, science has regressed back to pre-renaissance superstition. Thus, gurus who made their names promoting junk science, become the arbiters of what may be published. Without the feedback of reason, junk science is perpetuated