The truth or falsity of your statement really depends on the precise meaning of its main verb has. I see at least two ways this verb, and thus the entire sentence, could be interpreted:
Probably the more likely interpretation, has ascribes a property, in this case a subarctic and tundra climate, that applies to its subject, scandinavia [sic], in its entirety. Hence, for this sentence to be true in this meaning it would have to be the case that all of Scandinavia, i.e., the region consisting of the modern-day countries of Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland, is subarctic and is made up of a tundra biome, but that is not factual, i.e., only the northernmost and highest-elevation regions of Norway, Sweden and Finland have this type of environment.
But in this sentence has could also mean just 'includes' and in this meaning the sentence could certainly be true in that, as stated above, there are indeed subarctic and tundra areas in the region known as Scandinavia. Yet, arguing against this interpretation is the use of the indefinite article a with the predicate a subarctic and tundra climate since this suggests the reference is to a single instance of this type of climate, which by implication would apply to the whole region of Scandinavia which it in fact does not.