not all the scientists that post in science and nature are right, and not all agree in the flawed science that makes headlines. so your statement fails on two accounts 1) they aren't always right and 2) not ALL agree.
really, that's almost as bad as saying "it's settled" when referring to this topic. it's as if you think these are the only guys that get it right? what, just because science or nature publish something we have to just ignore the scientific method or real mathematical analysis?
the undying problem with both science and nature is, unfortunately, profit motive. they are both, btw, getting beat up for a failure to fully vett their articles (poor peer review) and, more importantly, failing to comply with
their own guidelines regarding data archiving and reproducibility. in fact, freeman dyson, et. al. recently sent a
letter to the NAS regarding just such an issue... no sir, it is not settled, and yes sir, nature and science are most definitely wrong sometimes.
taks