The point of the article is that this particular simulation did in fact accurately forecast mankind's future 30 years into the future, from 1970 to 2000. If yo

The point of the article is that this particular simulation did in fact accurately forecast mankind's future 30 years into the future, from 1970 to 2000. If you had made your argument against the model in 1970, you would have been wrong. The implication now is that since the model accurately predicted the last 30 years, we should also trust it to predict the next 30 years. You might still argue with the conclusions, but you need to be more specific in your criticisms than "these things can't be predicted", because according to the article, apparently they can be. At least for the last 30 years.