Reading through the abstract it immediately doesn’t appear that they are using the correct statistical test to come to the conclusion they are claiming. Like another comment says, it takes minutes to criticize what takes months to make, so I’ll read through the article and work through how they came to their methodology before saying more.

When the science doesn't match your preconceived notions

You don’t know that was the issue. There may be other (more or equally valid) scientific data that contradicts the article, or there may be flaws in the analysis.

Looking at the article, is about a computer model that somebody built - these are incredibly easy to (intentionally or unintentionally) bias, and I’d say that looking at this critically is entirely appropriate.

Article like this takes months to put in. It takes one minute to put this disclaimer basically cancelling the article with "but we will tell you why we're cancelling it later".

Trained scientists are capable of reading any article with a healthy dose of skepticism and does not need to be reminded of this for any paper. All papers have limitations and just because it is published even in a prestigious journal does not make it true. I think this notice exists for the casual reader and reporter and I also doubt the message would have been posted if it did not counter public policy.