Yet More Settled Science Shown to be Scientific Fraud

[Weatherman2020]

Investigation finds Swedish scientists committed scientific misconduct: Probe centered on controversial paper that claimed microplastic pollution harms fish.

Two Swedish scientists have been found guilty of “misconduct in research” in a paper that they published in Science1 and later retracted. Their highly publicized work had suggested that tiny particles of plastic in the ocean harm fish.

The misconduct ruling was made by an investigative board from Uppsala University in Sweden, where the researchers work.

Marine biologist Oona Lönnstedt and limnologist Peter Eklöv originally reported in their 2016 paper that microplastic particles had negative effects on young fish, including reducing their efforts to avoid predators. The duo’s report described a series of experiments on an island in the Baltic Sea. After other researchers raised questions about data availability and details of the experiments, Uppsala conducted an initial investigation and found no evidence of misconduct.

However, an expert group of Sweden’s Central Ethical Review Board, which was also tasked with vetting the study, concluded in April 2017 that Lönnstedt and Eklöv “have been guilty of scientific misconduct”. The researchers defended the paper but requested that Science retract it in light of questions about their findings. . .

In its decision, announced on 7 December, the board finds Lönnstedt guilty of having intentionally fabricated data; it alleges that Lönnstedt did not conduct the experiments during the period — and to the extent — described in the Science paper.



Well, it’s hard to argue that’s not fraud.

 

[Muhammed]

It's nothing compared to climategate.

 

[Old Rocks]

While the scientist committed fraud, you just told a lie in your title. It was hardly settled science. They submitted it for peer review, their peers reviewed it, and effectively destroyed any career in science that person might want to pursue. Scientific fraud is a career ending act. Unfortunately, lying is the norm here for the 'Conservatives' that hate science.

 

[bripat9643]

While the scientist committed fraud, you just told a lie in your title. It was hardly settled science. They submitted it for peer review, their peers reviewed it, and effectively destroyed any career in science that person might want to pursue. Scientific fraud is a career ending act. Unfortunately, lying is the norm here for the 'Conservatives' that hate science.

Not true. Michael Mann is still a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

 

[Billy_Bob]

While the scientist committed fraud, you just told a lie in your title. It was hardly settled science. They submitted it for peer review, their peers reviewed it, and effectively destroyed any career in science that person might want to pursue. Scientific fraud is a career ending act. Unfortunately, lying is the norm here for the 'Conservatives' that hate science.

Not true. Michael Mann is still a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Its kind of disgusting how those who commit fraud are protected by the political class...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Investigation finds Swedish scientists committed scientific misconduct: Probe centered on controversial paper that claimed microplastic pollution harms fish.

Two Swedish scientists have been found guilty of “misconduct in research” in a paper that they published in Science1 and later retracted. Their highly publicized work had suggested that tiny particles of plastic in the ocean harm fish.

The misconduct ruling was made by an investigative board from Uppsala University in Sweden, where the researchers work.

Marine biologist Oona Lönnstedt and limnologist Peter Eklöv originally reported in their 2016 paper that microplastic particles had negative effects on young fish, including reducing their efforts to avoid predators. The duo’s report described a series of experiments on an island in the Baltic Sea. After other researchers raised questions about data availability and details of the experiments, Uppsala conducted an initial investigation and found no evidence of misconduct.

However, an expert group of Sweden’s Central Ethical Review Board, which was also tasked with vetting the study, concluded in April 2017 that Lönnstedt and Eklöv “have been guilty of scientific misconduct”. The researchers defended the paper but requested that Science retract it in light of questions about their findings. . .

In its decision, announced on 7 December, the board finds Lönnstedt guilty of having intentionally fabricated data; it alleges that Lönnstedt did not conduct the experiments during the period — and to the extent — described in the Science paper.



Well, it’s hard to argue that’s not fraud.

What a stupid thread. The bad science was uncovered by scientists. This actually shows how great the entire process of science is. Compare this to your goofy religious beliefs....

Another reason this thread is moronic? It is, in fact, "settled science" that microplastic pollution harms the oceans ecosystems.

 

[bripat9643]

While the scientist committed fraud, you just told a lie in your title. It was hardly settled science. They submitted it for peer review, their peers reviewed it, and effectively destroyed any career in science that person might want to pursue. Scientific fraud is a career ending act. Unfortunately, lying is the norm here for the 'Conservatives' that hate science.

Not true. Michael Mann is still a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Its kind of disgusting how those who commit fraud are protected by the political class...

The snowflakes believe Mann is entitled to manufacture fake data on the taxpayers dime, and he's not even required to cough up his emails.

 

[bripat9643]

Investigation finds Swedish scientists committed scientific misconduct: Probe centered on controversial paper that claimed microplastic pollution harms fish.

Two Swedish scientists have been found guilty of “misconduct in research” in a paper that they published in Science1 and later retracted. Their highly publicized work had suggested that tiny particles of plastic in the ocean harm fish.

The misconduct ruling was made by an investigative board from Uppsala University in Sweden, where the researchers work.

Marine biologist Oona Lönnstedt and limnologist Peter Eklöv originally reported in their 2016 paper that microplastic particles had negative effects on young fish, including reducing their efforts to avoid predators. The duo’s report described a series of experiments on an island in the Baltic Sea. After other researchers raised questions about data availability and details of the experiments, Uppsala conducted an initial investigation and found no evidence of misconduct.

However, an expert group of Sweden’s Central Ethical Review Board, which was also tasked with vetting the study, concluded in April 2017 that Lönnstedt and Eklöv “have been guilty of scientific misconduct”. The researchers defended the paper but requested that Science retract it in light of questions about their findings. . .

In its decision, announced on 7 December, the board finds Lönnstedt guilty of having intentionally fabricated data; it alleges that Lönnstedt did not conduct the experiments during the period — and to the extent — described in the Science paper.



Well, it’s hard to argue that’s not fraud.

What a stupid thread. The bad science was uncovered by scientists. This actually shows how great the entire process of science is. Compare this to your goofy religious beliefs....

Another reason this thread is moronic? It is, in fact, "settled science" that microplastic pollution harms the oceans ecosystems.

There's no such thing as "settled science," bonehead.

 

[fncceo]

I'm sure those Swedish scientists are in the employee of the giant condom industry... Big Condom.

 

[Old Rocks]

While the scientist committed fraud, you just told a lie in your title. It was hardly settled science. They submitted it for peer review, their peers reviewed it, and effectively destroyed any career in science that person might want to pursue. Scientific fraud is a career ending act. Unfortunately, lying is the norm here for the 'Conservatives' that hate science.

Not true. Michael Mann is still a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Its kind of disgusting how those who commit fraud are protected by the political class...

The snowflakes believe Mann is entitled to manufacture fake data on the taxpayers dime, and he's not even required to cough up his emails.

LOL You simply repeat the 'Conservative' lie about Dr. Mann, and, of course, other room temperature IQ 'Conservatives' believe it. Dr. Mann's science has never been disproven, and in fact, more than a dozen independent studies, using different methods and proxies, have confirmed the Hockey Stick. For that reason, Dr. Mann is a scientist with international stature, while you are just a little finger boy on an internet message board. LOL

 

[bripat9643]

While the scientist committed fraud, you just told a lie in your title. It was hardly settled science. They submitted it for peer review, their peers reviewed it, and effectively destroyed any career in science that person might want to pursue. Scientific fraud is a career ending act. Unfortunately, lying is the norm here for the 'Conservatives' that hate science.

Not true. Michael Mann is still a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Its kind of disgusting how those who commit fraud are protected by the political class...

The snowflakes believe Mann is entitled to manufacture fake data on the taxpayers dime, and he's not even required to cough up his emails.

LOL You simply repeat the 'Conservative' lie about Dr. Mann, and, of course, other room temperature IQ 'Conservatives' believe it. Dr. Mann's science has never been disproven, and in fact, more than a dozen independent studies, using different methods and proxies, have confirmed the Hockey Stick. For that reason, Dr. Mann is a scientist with international stature, while you are just a little finger boy on an internet message board. LOL

Wrong, bonehead. McIntyre and McKitrick disproved it mathematically. Mann is a mathematical ignoramus, and his algorithm turned even random noise into a hocky stick graph. The National Acadamy of Sciences agreed. None of the studies you refered to were "independent." Most of them just repeated the same mathematical errors man made and used the same bogus data he used.

Mann will go down in history as a fraud and a con artist.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Investigation finds Swedish scientists committed scientific misconduct: Probe centered on controversial paper that claimed microplastic pollution harms fish.

Two Swedish scientists have been found guilty of “misconduct in research” in a paper that they published in Science1 and later retracted. Their highly publicized work had suggested that tiny particles of plastic in the ocean harm fish.

The misconduct ruling was made by an investigative board from Uppsala University in Sweden, where the researchers work.

Marine biologist Oona Lönnstedt and limnologist Peter Eklöv originally reported in their 2016 paper that microplastic particles had negative effects on young fish, including reducing their efforts to avoid predators. The duo’s report described a series of experiments on an island in the Baltic Sea. After other researchers raised questions about data availability and details of the experiments, Uppsala conducted an initial investigation and found no evidence of misconduct.

However, an expert group of Sweden’s Central Ethical Review Board, which was also tasked with vetting the study, concluded in April 2017 that Lönnstedt and Eklöv “have been guilty of scientific misconduct”. The researchers defended the paper but requested that Science retract it in light of questions about their findings. . .

In its decision, announced on 7 December, the board finds Lönnstedt guilty of having intentionally fabricated data; it alleges that Lönnstedt did not conduct the experiments during the period — and to the extent — described in the Science paper.



Well, it’s hard to argue that’s not fraud.

What a stupid thread. The bad science was uncovered by scientists. This actually shows how great the entire process of science is. Compare this to your goofy religious beliefs....

Another reason this thread is moronic? It is, in fact, "settled science" that microplastic pollution harms the oceans ecosystems.

Until about 30 years ago all scientific research was peer reviewed prior to release. But now that the scientific community is just a political tool they no longer review research and everyone is just spewing BS to get a bigger paycheck. Like with manmade Gorebal Warming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Altered data, flawed computer models, yeah settled

 

[Old Rocks]

While the scientist committed fraud, you just told a lie in your title. It was hardly settled science. They submitted it for peer review, their peers reviewed it, and effectively destroyed any career in science that person might want to pursue. Scientific fraud is a career ending act. Unfortunately, lying is the norm here for the 'Conservatives' that hate science.

Not true. Michael Mann is still a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Its kind of disgusting how those who commit fraud are protected by the political class...

The snowflakes believe Mann is entitled to manufacture fake data on the taxpayers dime, and he's not even required to cough up his emails.

LOL You simply repeat the 'Conservative' lie about Dr. Mann, and, of course, other room temperature IQ 'Conservatives' believe it. Dr. Mann's science has never been disproven, and in fact, more than a dozen independent studies, using different methods and proxies, have confirmed the Hockey Stick. For that reason, Dr. Mann is a scientist with international stature, while you are just a little finger boy on an internet message board. LOL

Wrong, bonehead. McIntyre and McKitrick disproved it mathematically. Mann is a mathematical ignoramus, and his algorithm turned even random noise into a hocky stick graph. The National Acadamy of Sciences agreed. None of the studies you refered to were "independent." Most of them just repeated the same mathematical errors man made and used the same bogus data he used.

Mann will go down in history as a fraud and a con artist.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate Division on Earth and Life Studies

Copyright 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Summary

Because widespread, reliable instrumental records are available only for the last 150 years or so, scientists estimate climatic conditions in the more distant past by analyzing proxy evidence from sources such as tree rings, corals, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, ice cores, boreholes, glaciers, and documentary evidence. For example, records of Alpine glacier length, some of which are derived from paintings and other documentary sources, have been used to reconstruct the time series of surface temperature variations in south-central Europe for the last several centuries. Studying past climates can help us put the 20th century warming into a broader context, better understand the climate system, and improve projections of future climate.

Starting in the late 1990s, scientists began combining proxy evidence from many different locations in an effort to estimate surface temperature changes averaged over broad geographic regions during the last few hundred to few thousand years. These large-scale surface temperature reconstructions have enabled researchers to estimate past temperature variations over the Northern Hemisphere or even the entire globe, often with time resolution as fine as decades or even individual years. This research, and especially the first of these reconstructions published in 1998 and 1999 by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes, attracted considerable attention because the authors concluded that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the late 20th century than at any other time during the past millennium. Controversy arose because many people interpreted this result as definitive evidence of anthropogenic causes of recent climate change, while others criticized the methodologies and data that were used.

In response to a request from Congress, this committee was assembled by the National Research Council to describe and assess the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for the Earth over approximately the last 2,000 years and the implications of these efforts for our understanding of global climate change.
.....................................................................................................................................................

A second area of criticism focuses on statistical validation and robustness. McIntyre and McKitrick (2003, 2005a,b) question the choice and application of statistical methods, notably principal component analysis; the metric used in the validation step of the reconstruction exercise; and the selection of proxies, especially the bristlecone pine data used in some of the original temperature reconstruction studies. These and other criticisms, explored briefly in the remainder of this chapter, raised concerns that led to new research and ongoing efforts to improve how surface temperature reconstructions are performed.

As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al. (Crowley and Lowry 2000, Huybers 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Hegerl et al. 2006,

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf

While the authors of the 2006 report did not like his statistical methods, using their own methods, they came up with essentially the same graph. That make you and those like you that accuse Dr. Mann of fraud, liars. Instead of relying on the word of asshole deniars, why the hell don't you ignoramuses go to the paper by the National Academy of Sciences? It is there for the use of all citizens.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Not true. Michael Mann is still a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Its kind of disgusting how those who commit fraud are protected by the political class...

The snowflakes believe Mann is entitled to manufacture fake data on the taxpayers dime, and he's not even required to cough up his emails.

LOL You simply repeat the 'Conservative' lie about Dr. Mann, and, of course, other room temperature IQ 'Conservatives' believe it. Dr. Mann's science has never been disproven, and in fact, more than a dozen independent studies, using different methods and proxies, have confirmed the Hockey Stick. For that reason, Dr. Mann is a scientist with international stature, while you are just a little finger boy on an internet message board. LOL

Wrong, bonehead. McIntyre and McKitrick disproved it mathematically. Mann is a mathematical ignoramus, and his algorithm turned even random noise into a hocky stick graph. The National Acadamy of Sciences agreed. None of the studies you refered to were "independent." Most of them just repeated the same mathematical errors man made and used the same bogus data he used.

Mann will go down in history as a fraud and a con artist.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate Division on Earth and Life Studies

Copyright 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Summary

Because widespread, reliable instrumental records are available only for the last 150 years or so, scientists estimate climatic conditions in the more distant past by analyzing proxy evidence from sources such as tree rings, corals, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, ice cores, boreholes, glaciers, and documentary evidence. For example, records of Alpine glacier length, some of which are derived from paintings and other documentary sources, have been used to reconstruct the time series of surface temperature variations in south-central Europe for the last several centuries. Studying past climates can help us put the 20th century warming into a broader context, better understand the climate system, and improve projections of future climate.

Starting in the late 1990s, scientists began combining proxy evidence from many different locations in an effort to estimate surface temperature changes averaged over broad geographic regions during the last few hundred to few thousand years. These large-scale surface temperature reconstructions have enabled researchers to estimate past temperature variations over the Northern Hemisphere or even the entire globe, often with time resolution as fine as decades or even individual years. This research, and especially the first of these reconstructions published in 1998 and 1999 by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes, attracted considerable attention because the authors concluded that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the late 20th century than at any other time during the past millennium. Controversy arose because many people interpreted this result as definitive evidence of anthropogenic causes of recent climate change, while others criticized the methodologies and data that were used.

In response to a request from Congress, this committee was assembled by the National Research Council to describe and assess the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for the Earth over approximately the last 2,000 years and the implications of these efforts for our understanding of global climate change.
.....................................................................................................................................................

A second area of criticism focuses on statistical validation and robustness. McIntyre and McKitrick (2003, 2005a,b) question the choice and application of statistical methods, notably principal component analysis; the metric used in the validation step of the reconstruction exercise; and the selection of proxies, especially the bristlecone pine data used in some of the original temperature reconstruction studies. These and other criticisms, explored briefly in the remainder of this chapter, raised concerns that led to new research and ongoing efforts to improve how surface temperature reconstructions are performed.

As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al. (Crowley and Lowry 2000, Huybers 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Hegerl et al. 2006,

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf

While the authors of the 2006 report did not like his statistical methods, using their own methods, they came up with essentially the same graph. That make you and those like you that accuse Dr. Mann of fraud, liars. Instead of relying on the word of asshole deniars, why the hell don't you ignoramuses go to the paper by the National Academy of Sciences? It is there for the use of all citizens.

Posting up idiots, who made the same mistake Mann did, over and over again will not exonerate him.. He is a liar and a fraud and it shows just how gullible and scientific ignorant you are.....

 

[bripat9643]

Not true. Michael Mann is still a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Its kind of disgusting how those who commit fraud are protected by the political class...

The snowflakes believe Mann is entitled to manufacture fake data on the taxpayers dime, and he's not even required to cough up his emails.

LOL You simply repeat the 'Conservative' lie about Dr. Mann, and, of course, other room temperature IQ 'Conservatives' believe it. Dr. Mann's science has never been disproven, and in fact, more than a dozen independent studies, using different methods and proxies, have confirmed the Hockey Stick. For that reason, Dr. Mann is a scientist with international stature, while you are just a little finger boy on an internet message board. LOL

Wrong, bonehead. McIntyre and McKitrick disproved it mathematically. Mann is a mathematical ignoramus, and his algorithm turned even random noise into a hocky stick graph. The National Acadamy of Sciences agreed. None of the studies you refered to were "independent." Most of them just repeated the same mathematical errors man made and used the same bogus data he used.

Mann will go down in history as a fraud and a con artist.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate Division on Earth and Life Studies

Copyright 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Summary

Because widespread, reliable instrumental records are available only for the last 150 years or so, scientists estimate climatic conditions in the more distant past by analyzing proxy evidence from sources such as tree rings, corals, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, ice cores, boreholes, glaciers, and documentary evidence. For example, records of Alpine glacier length, some of which are derived from paintings and other documentary sources, have been used to reconstruct the time series of surface temperature variations in south-central Europe for the last several centuries. Studying past climates can help us put the 20th century warming into a broader context, better understand the climate system, and improve projections of future climate.

Starting in the late 1990s, scientists began combining proxy evidence from many different locations in an effort to estimate surface temperature changes averaged over broad geographic regions during the last few hundred to few thousand years. These large-scale surface temperature reconstructions have enabled researchers to estimate past temperature variations over the Northern Hemisphere or even the entire globe, often with time resolution as fine as decades or even individual years. This research, and especially the first of these reconstructions published in 1998 and 1999 by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes, attracted considerable attention because the authors concluded that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the late 20th century than at any other time during the past millennium. Controversy arose because many people interpreted this result as definitive evidence of anthropogenic causes of recent climate change, while others criticized the methodologies and data that were used.

In response to a request from Congress, this committee was assembled by the National Research Council to describe and assess the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for the Earth over approximately the last 2,000 years and the implications of these efforts for our understanding of global climate change.
.....................................................................................................................................................

A second area of criticism focuses on statistical validation and robustness. McIntyre and McKitrick (2003, 2005a,b) question the choice and application of statistical methods, notably principal component analysis; the metric used in the validation step of the reconstruction exercise; and the selection of proxies, especially the bristlecone pine data used in some of the original temperature reconstruction studies. These and other criticisms, explored briefly in the remainder of this chapter, raised concerns that led to new research and ongoing efforts to improve how surface temperature reconstructions are performed.

As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al. (Crowley and Lowry 2000, Huybers 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Hegerl et al. 2006,

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf

While the authors of the 2006 report did not like his statistical methods, using their own methods, they came up with essentially the same graph. That make you and those like you that accuse Dr. Mann of fraud, liars. Instead of relying on the word of asshole deniars, why the hell don't you ignoramuses go to the paper by the National Academy of Sciences? It is there for the use of all citizens.

McIntyre and McKitrick picked these "studies" apart as well. They used the same proxies that were already exposed as bogus, such as the brislecone pine, and had similar problems with their statistical analysis.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There's no such thing as "settled science," bonehead.

In a colloquial sense, there certainly is. Feel free to jump off of your roof and see if you fall up.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But now that the scientific community is just a political tool they no longer review research

Ridiculous lie...do you make this stuff up yourself, or are you parroting some idiot blog you found?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

While the scientist committed fraud, you just told a lie in your title. It was hardly settled science. They submitted it for peer review, their peers reviewed it, and effectively destroyed any career in science that person might want to pursue. Scientific fraud is a career ending act. Unfortunately, lying is the norm here for the 'Conservatives' that hate science.

Not true. Michael Mann is still a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Its kind of disgusting how those who commit fraud are protected by the political class...

The snowflakes believe Mann is entitled to manufacture fake data on the taxpayers dime, and he's not even required to cough up his emails.

LOL You simply repeat the 'Conservative' lie about Dr. Mann, and, of course, other room temperature IQ 'Conservatives' believe it. Dr. Mann's science has never been disproven, and in fact, more than a dozen independent studies, using different methods and proxies, have confirmed the Hockey Stick. For that reason, Dr. Mann is a scientist with international stature, while you are just a little finger boy on an internet message board. LOL

Wrong, bonehead. McIntyre and McKitrick disproved it mathematically. Mann is a mathematical ignoramus, and his algorithm turned even random noise into a hocky stick graph. The National Acadamy of Sciences agreed. None of the studies you refered to were "independent." Most of them just repeated the same mathematical errors man made and used the same bogus data he used.

Mann will go down in history as a fraud and a con artist.

The "hockey stick" has been verified over and over.

 

[bripat9643]

There's no such thing as "settled science," bonehead.

In a colloquial sense, there certainly is. Feel free to jump off of your roof and see if you fall up.

In case you aren't aware of it, bonehead, Einstein's general theoy of relativity modified the law of gravity. Further modifications may come in the future. So not even the law of gravity is "settled science."