No, lots of critics of the model (like me) consider the conclusions of the model to be invalid. It's inherent in the nature of validity actually - a fraudulent

No, lots of critics of the model (like me) consider the conclusions of the model to be invalid. It's inherent in the nature of validity actually - a fraudulent model like World3 cannot be said to be "valid" even if a few of its vague prognostications end up in the right general area. Any definition of validity that allowed such a thing would also have to apply to fortune tellers, who often say things that seem directionally accurate but whose methods are of course not "valid".