In this case I can easily see the memory being “Oh yeah, that was the paper the journal retracted because there was something wrong with it.””

If you surveyed people about the Recursive Fury retraction the overwhelming reaction would be: What are you talking about? There will be no general memory of this because very few are aware of it. The coverage has basically been limited to the predictable internet blogs. It’s also been covered on Salon:

” Academic journal bows to pressure from climate deniers
A study linking deniers to conspiracy theorists was retracted — despite being academically sound.”
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/21/academic_journal_bows_to_pressure_from_climate_deniers/

Of mainstream publications, I’m only aware of The Guardian’s post by Dana Nuccitelli with the headline “Contrarians bully journal into retracting a climate psychology paper,” and the standfirst,
“After threats of frivolous libel and defamation lawsuits, a journal will retract an academically sound paper”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/21/contrarians-bully-climate-change-journal-retraction

Neither the Salon nor The Guardian posts would lead to your conclusion.

So true to type, they protect their egos and obfuscate their deficiencies by pretending that somehow THEY are really the victims. Sad, desperate little fig leaf.

AGW = It’s All Gone Wrong!

LOL © soosoos

In the mean time, if I was in that field looking for a place to publish I’d avoid the journal. They can’t be trusted at this point to back up their own decisions.

I agree. My point was simply that (in my experience) most people remember the saucier bits of the initial outcry but do not remember the resolution or comments about the resolution, unless they are equally saucy.

Now you’ve very clearly demonstrated your lack of interest in having a real conversation.

“, you’ve refused to answer the simple question I’ve been asking all along”

I’m pretty sure I’ve answered any outstanding questions. If I did not, in what manner to you intend to force me to answer some question you’ve got? Freedom of information act request? Law suit? Constant harassment on the internet? What’s your plan?

“yet you’ve boldly claimed this paper was retracted due to a conspiracy”

Are you referring to the off the cuff remark I made on Twitter? You make me laugh.

Yes it may well be that the harassment of these authors is a matter of conspiracy. Maybe you’re even involved in it, I don’t know. You’ve had opportunities here to present evidence clearing your name but you’ve failed to do so. What does that mean? I’ll leave it to my readers to decide that.

I’m still waiting for an apology. Your next comment will have that apology in it.

As though getting basically every point wrong during this exchange isn’t bad enough, you’ve refused to answer the simple question I’ve been asking all along. Only the most biased of individuals would take you seriously at this point.

You’ve basically admitted to not knowing basic details about this issue, and yet you’ve boldly claimed this paper was retracted due to a conspiracy in direct contradiction to what Frontiers says. I think you’ve managed to meet all six of Lewandowsky’s criteria for conspiratorial ideation.

Good point. I suppose this might even be grounds for a law suit!

I suppose if people who respect the peer reviewed literature, you know, like actual scientists and such, went after Frontiers they’s have to unretract the paper and make up some more mumbly crap about what they were up to.

In the mean time, if I was in that field looking for a place to publish I’d avoid the journal. They can’t be trusted at this point to back up their own decisions. You either publish a paper or you don’t, and unless it is retracted for scientific reasons you leave it there and let it stand as part of the record.

I’m not aware of those complaints.

“You were certainly suggesting I lied. I pointed out Frontiers did something, saying you should note it. You said saying Frontiers did it would be telling a lie. Based on that, I’d have to be lying to say it did it.”

No, as I said, I refused to make a statement that I would have regarded as a lie. You are now ether lying yourself or being as dumb as a brick. So, apologize.

“As for what Frontiers said in that quote, it does not remotely contradict what it said in public. ”

You can make up whatever interpretation you like of events and of Fronteir’s waffling and behavior.

I may be wrong, but I think this belongs with the ongoing Mann case as an example of hubristic overreach.

I’m not so sure. I think if you surveyed people about the first issue and asked what they remembered it would be the original hullabaloo but not the resolution.

In this case I can easily see the memory being “Oh yeah, that was the paper the journal retracted because there was something wrong with it.”