Depending on what you mean by "false", I agree. Almost certainly human activity is causing global warming. But I don't think we have any basis whatsoever to understand the implications of that.

People thinking and behaving as though this realm we share maps cleanly to binary (true / false) logic is a real problem in science and metascience (and policy based thereon).

Ioannidis seems to be every bit as guilty of this fallacy as those whose work he is critiquing.

Models are *models* and the map is not the territory.

So to me, the "falsity" in the conclusions is not that the truth is the opposite of whatever is being claimed. It's that the underlying assumption that having conducted the study and run your stats gives you someplace to stand to make firm statements about reality is absurd.

That's exactly not science.