What determines how much coverage a climate study gets? It
probably goes without saying that it isn’t strongly related to
the quality of the actual science, nor to the clarity of the
writing. Appearing in one of the top journals does help (Nature,
Science, PNAS and occasionally GRL), though that in itself is no
guarantee. Instead, it most often depends on the ‘news’ value of
the bottom line. Journalists and editors like stories that
surprise, that give something ‘new’ to the subject and are
therefore likely to be interesting enough to readers to make
them read past the headline. It particularly helps if a new
study runs counter to some generally perceived notion (whether
that is rooted in fact or not). In such cases, the ‘news peg’ is
clear. And so it was for the Steig et al “Antarctic warming”
study that appeared last week. Mainstream media coverage was
widespread and generally did a good job of covering the
essentials. The most prevalent peg was the fact that the study
appeared to reverse the “Antarctic coo