Anyway on the substance of the CSIRO issue you're right. The impression I get from the one person I half-know there, and what I read, is that it's in big trouble under a governmnent that is intent on politicising public services from top to bottom.
That said, all science is subject to bias according to its funding, particularly if not readily reproducible. The CSIRO is an org that garners public and private funding.
From the narrative :
> This study was published in the US Geophysical Research Letters journal and was funded by CSIRO's Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, the Australian Research Council and Land & Water Australia.
So, self funded with a few other gov interests thrown in. Is this enough to invalidate findings? Only if not reproducible... But has anyone tried?
Sorry if this wasn't clear: I am (or was, see the following graf) suggesting a political bias (or at the very least a willingness to turn a blind eye).
I also just realized that this paper and summary were published in 2013, not this year. I don't know enough about Australian politics to know how independent CSIRO was then, but it's very possible that I'm wrong in impugning motives.
In any case, I think the hazard is still present: positive emphasis on the silver lining of what is otherwise an unmitigated disaster gives ammunition to denialists and (undeserved) psychological reprieve to the rest of us.