I have looked at this article three times and I something just blocks me from being able to “get it”. I know part of that is this ^#*%! tendency of some paleo-climate/geology fields to run time backwards - graphing in such a way that current dates are on the left and older times on the right. That can really mess up my mind if I’m not completely with it that day. However, I don’t think that is my problem with this particular study. I just am unable to follow the logic in the article, or abstract. Often I will get a hold of the original paper in this type of situation, but I just don’t feel in a good state of mind generally to do that with this paper.
I think this is a frightening chart. Not only has there been considerable variation since that area on the right (which was during the last big ocean level increase ~ which ended about 8500 years ago), it's lately (last 1500 years) been getting colder, and is now on a steep decline.
Yeah, these guys will stroke the AGW crowd for funds by saying "Oh, yeah, brutha' and that warming stuff, oh, yeah, this has nothin' against it oh, no" because they know none of those guys know how to read a chart that covers 10,000 years!