The original article/talk predicted that the Australian wheat harvest would collapse because of climate change 13 years ago. It didn't, and has in fact increased since then.

The Conversation article is referencing scientists making the same prediction now, presumably based on the same modelling work. I get that new understanding can lead to new insight, but I don't think it's "anti-science" or "denial" to treat this new round of predictions with some scepticism, given that they're basically an exact repeat of the predictions in 2010. Which turned out to be not only incorrect, but wildly incorrect, the opposite of what actually happened.