What was done
The authors studied a series of storm ridges at Curacoa Island on the central Queensland shelf (18°40'S; 146°33'E) that were deposited over the past 5,000 years in an attempt to create a history of major cyclonic events that have impacted that area.  One of their reasons for doing so was to test the climate-model-based hypothesis that "global warming leads to an increase of cyclone frequency or intensity."

What was learned
The authors' primary finding was that "cyclone frequency was statistically constant over the last 5,000 years."  Secondarily, they could find "no indication that cyclones have changed in intensity."  They also note that isotopic and trace element evidence from ancient corals indicates that sea surface temperatures were about 1°C warmer about 5,000 years ago, and that pollen spectra from lake sediments suggest that rainfall at that time was about 20% higher than today.

What it means
The results of this study clearly indicate, at least for this particular part of the world, that cyclone frequency and intensity do not respond to changes in temperature as predicted by climate alarmists, who say they base their claims on the output of state-of-the-art climate models.  Hence, there is little reason to believe that tropical storms will respond to global warming in the ways they claim, i.e., that they will intensify and become more frequent.

So who are you going to believe: climate alarmists or the testimony of nature?  Seems like a no-brainer to us.