What's more, the research method, as described above, was incredibly flawed.

Lighter,

In defence of the University of Kent researchers, they have been entirely misrepresented by Kevin Barrett (the author of the article in Songwronger's initial post).

For example, Barrett states that "The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments"

They say nothing of the sort.

Additionally, Barrett 'interprets' the research in terms of:
"among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom

However the researchers actually comment that:
"The self-selective nature of online communication allows for the collection of a great deal of data regarding opinions that may be held by only a minority of people"

I could go on, but you get the idea...