It's not so much precisely as opposed to having flawed models that are ideologically-biased and then reality observation has a nasty habit of disconfirming the model. Do they then adjust it and invalidate their AGW premise? That's the $64K question.jafs wrote: Not at all. It's the skeptics who challenge climate scientists based on the idea that you have to know/predict everything incredibly precisely, or else it's not valid/useful.
Seems like a strawman argument to me.
Similar to AGW, it all depends on how you define "overpopulation". We have more than enough land for everyone, but everyone persists in flocking to and living in overcongested metro-urban shitholes. So of course there is an "overpopulation" problem on relative terms. Capitalism is the greatest birth control solution ever invented, so hurry up Africa, India and China!!!A quick search finds that author thinks overpopulation isn't a real thing/problem - surely you don't agree with that? It was the first item listed in the Wikipedia article.
Basically, it all comes down to what you want to believe... objective facts about the state of the world or doom porn propaganda. Recognize for what it is and act accordingly.