Here’s a guess. You won’t see coverage of this similar to what you saw of this.
The reasons are simple: a) the two studies involve observations, not computer models, and b) what was observed was cooling (despite the models telling us the oceans are actually warming, such that the first of the two studies spawned the amazing claim that the observations therefore must be wrong).
Of course, you might soon hear of a study claiming that–compared to some particular, selected baseline other than that which shows the present cooling–they’re really warming, at least according to data they created on their own and inserted, where there actually is none.
Meaning, the same thing you saw in that Antarctica revision that was too good to be true. Funny thing is, it turns out that, according to a co-author, the finding is distilled as “We can’t pin it down, but it certainly is consistent with the influence of greenhouse gases.” Which, Roger Pielke Jr. reminds us, is the same thing the alarmists said about Antarctic cooling before Mann et al. rose to the task and inserted data into the record where there is no record.
As Julian Simon noted to audiences of a similar bent, I’m afraid I am underdressed for church.