[richardwhiuk]

There's no testable prediction in this model.

He also just assumes some naive correlations based on some graphs, without doing any rudimentary statistics (e.g. chi squared to check if the correlations are even notable), and then plugs the numbers in and see's what he comes out with.

Instead, he should base his model on data from say 2000, and then predict the population in 2015, and then if that's correct, he might be able to say something about 2065 with any degree of certainty.

That he disagrees with other predictions suggests his model is wrong, but it's difficult to say how.

[fleitz]

Yup, reverse malthusianism.