Extreme carrying capacity estimates go far outside the broad, fourfold range bracketed by the estimates just cited. They have been defined by true believers in the antipodal camps of catastrophist and cornucopian futures. A generation ago Ehrlich (1968) wrote that “the battle to feed all humanity is over” and that “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death” during the 1970s.2 Ehrlich’s global population maximum would have to be well below the 1970 total of about 3.7 billion people. In contrast, Simon (1981) maintained that food has no long-run, physi-cal limit. These extremes leave us either with the prospect of eliminating about half of humanity in order to return the worldwide count to a sup-portable level or with visions of crop harvests surpassing the mass of the planet itself.3 As Sauvy (1990[1949]: 774) noted crisply, “Lack of precision in data and in method of analysis allows shortcuts toward reaching an ob-jective predetermined by prejudice, shaped largely either by faith in progress or by conservative skepticism.”

Limits to Growth is now pretty much past its sell by date

Criticism of LTG was immediate. Peter Passell and two co-authors published a 2 April 1972 article in the New York Times describing LTG as “…an empty and misleading work …. best summarized … as a rediscovery of the oldest maxim of computer science: Garbage In, Garbage Out.” Passell found the study’s simulations to be simplistic, while assigning little value to the role of technological progress in solving the problems of resource depletion, pollution, and food production. They charged that all LTG simulations ended in collapse, predicted the imminent end of irreplaceable resources, and, finally, that the entire endeavor was motivated by a hidden agenda: to halt growth in its tracks.[17]

In 1973, a group of researchers at the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, published Models of Doom; A Critique of The Limits to Growth. The Sussex group examined the structure and assumptions of the MIT models. They concluded that the simulations were very sensitive to a few key assumptions and suggest that the MIT assumptions were unduly pessimistic. The Sussex scientists concluded that the MIT methodology, data, and projections were faulty and do not accurately reflect reality.[18] Claiming that the Sussex critics applied “micro reasoning to macro problems”, the LTG team, in “A Response to Sussex”, described and analyzed five major areas of disagreement between themselves and the Sussex authors.[19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

One thing that puzzles me is why when draws the conclusion that the MSM is a lie machine, Which I agree with. Then why is it the Anthropogenic Global Warming due to the CO2 Hypothesis is somehow a Truth that the MSM is Consistently Telling? I can not reconcile that contradiction, I am curious how you do yourself?
Addicted to Distracted By Bruce Charlton Makes for compelling if Uncomfortable reading.
http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.se/
It will offend most readers but he has a very good point, I do not share his pessimism but the rest is hard to argue with.
“People and events presented by the media as Good are always, in reality, bad; and people or events presented by the media as bad are usually (but not always) Good — and when bad people or events are not presented as Good, then they are condemned as bad for the wrong reasons.
Also, if genuinely Good things happen to be presented as Good by the Mass Media; then it will invariably be the case that they also are said to be Good for the wrong reasons.
Thus, the major output of the modern International Mass Media consists of only four categories:
1. Good presented as bad
2. Bad presented as Good
(That is to say simple inversion)
3. Good presented as Good for a bad reason
4. Bad presented as bad for a bad reason
(That is to say explanatory inversion)
These four categories, which can be summarized as either simple or explanatory inversion, account for all sustained and high-impact modern major Mass Media stories without any exceptions.
Therefore those who want to free their minds from the Mass Media must first avoid as much Mass Media output as possible, and secondly develop automatic negativistic behaviour towards the Mass Media output which they cannot avoid”.
https://off-guardian.org/2017/06/17/the-revolution-is-being-televised-but-why/
For what its worth here is my investigation of The Carbon Cycle, Climate Science and all of that.
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2016/11/climate-change-agw-and-all-points-from.html

Climate Population and Green Fascist misanthropic Catastrophe Porn makes me think that Green are the new BrownShirts.