Not happening? Climate change tends to be rejected by free-market supporters. A year-long investigation “did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study,” it said. However, the probe found “the legal context (to be) insufficiently clear”. The paper, though, is being carried by the website of the University of Western Australia (UWA), where one of its authors, cognitive scientist Stephan Lewandowsky, was based. “Sadly, it has turned into a routine for outsiders with no scientific standing to approach, bully, or intimidate journals, editors, and academics,” said Professor Lewandowsky, now at the UK’s University of Bristol. One person commenting on the Frontiers’ website asked for the ‘‘full details of the investigation,’’ saying the paper had been ‘‘derogatory and insulting’’ by naming people as conspiracy theorists who were ‘‘merely pointing out errors in the previous paper’’.

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky Credit:G.Honner According to Graham Readfearn of DeSmogblog.com, the legal threats were that the paper was defamatory. Scientific rejection The genesis of the rejected paper was a 4000-word paper in Psychological Science in 2012 by Professor Lewandowsky and co-authors that explored the links between an endorsement of free-market economics and a rejection of climate change science. Support for free markets was also a predictor of rejection of mainstream science in other fields, such the link between smoking and cancer, the authors wrote.

It means that if a paper is published that the climate deniers don't like the look of, they can bombard the journal with complaints or threats Endorsement of a range of conspiracy theories, such as a belief NASA faked the moon landing in a Hollywood studio or that the FBI had killed US civil rights campaigner Martin Luther King Jr., also predicted a climate change denial stance. Professor Lewandowsky and co-authors then studied how internet bloggers reacted to their initial work, producing the Recursive Fury paper that Frontiers published in February 2013 and has now retracted. “The extent and vehemence of contrarian activity provided a particularly informative testbed for an analysis of how conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science among web denizens,” the authors wrote. Responses took several paths: opponents objected to UWA alleging misconduct by Professor Lewandowsky; requests for freedom of information were submitted seeking emails and documents; findings were re-analysed to show the facts did not exist; and several theories began circulating “with arguably conspiracist content”, the researchers said.

Two typical conspiracist attributes emerged: an immutable belief that “something must be wrong” and that the authors were engaged in intentional malfeasance”, they wrote. ‘Bombard’ the journal John Cook, a researcher at the University of Queensland and a co-author of the second paper, said the Frontiers’ decision to retract the work might have a “chilling effect” on research. “It means that if a paper is published that the climate deniers don’t like the look of, they can bombard the journal with complaints or threats,” Mr Cook said. “Knowing they have had success once might embolden them to try to retreat the strategy again.” (Mr Cook also helms the Skeptical Science website.)

Kim Heitman, a lawyer for the UWA, said the university had done its own risk analysis before publishing the paper online. “There’s no reason to take it down,” Mr Heitman said. The university had also received complaints from some groups. “It’s quite relentless,” he said. “There’s always a close interest in everything that Steve (Lewandowsky) does,” Mr Heitman said. “We are conscious that we are going to be targeted by people opposed to his works.”



The university, though, had also received plaudits from around the world for its decision to publish the paper.



"I couldn't list them," Mr Heitman said. "And I wouldn't list them, having regard to the fact that anyone who issues a 'thanks UWA' will probably get their own enquiry." 'Spineless' Elaine McKewon, one of the retracted paper's three independent reviewers, said Frontiers had been "spineless" in its response to complaints.

"They caved in at the first pushback from the climate change denial community," Ms McKewon said.



"To retract a paper is just the most extreme action that a journal can take, and it was thoroughly unwarranted in this decision," she said. "It was really quite breathtaking." Ms McKewon, a research associate at the University of Technology Sydney's Centre for Independent Journalism, said she would "absolutely not" review for the journal in the future. Loading "You don't behave like this and expect people to want to publish in your journal," she said. Ms McKewon also published an account of the paper's retraction on The Conversation website.