An interesting follow up is this article by the lead-author of that study: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/08/lets-learn-from-mistakes/

Note how one of the contrarian scientists they tried to replicate (in fact one I think Ivo has quoted a few times) was in fact a reviewer of their paper multiple times, declined to declare his conflict of interest, and blocked them from publication. Acting as a gatekeeper to keep skeptical research about his paper from being published.

...the exact same thing they keep (falsely) accusing the other 97% of scientists off.

There is, of course, a gatekeeping process that is actually keeping most contrarian papers from being published. That process isn't corrupt peer-review or grant-greed or any other conspiracy theory bovine manure however. It's something much more basic: evidence.

Most contrarian papers don't get published because they can't fake evidence convincingly enough.