Seems like a constant in doomsday "science": making a model that bear ressemblance to reality as much as SimCity does, run it to get the expected conclusion, then extrapolate and conclude with newsworthy title that X or Y is true in reality.
It's worth noting that this portion is generally done by science reporters rather than the scientists. It's quite often the case that alarmist articles refer to research with much more measured and less sweeping claims.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/
Of course, you are more than welcome to voice concrete concerns about this specific study, if you have any (beyond what the GP already said).
Please don’t condescend people and definitely don’t go around arguing that science holds unrealistic simplicity as a core tenant.
The comment I replied to seemed to make the following reasoning: "a lot of junk science uses oversimplified models; this work also uses an oversimplified model; therefore, this work is also junk science".
And my intention was to point out that this kind of reasoning is invalid, because simplification is an important aspect of the scientific process.