Yes, exactly.

Maybe the question to population deniers should be framed as:

• What upper and lower bounds do you place on the hard limits of how many humans the planet can support indefinitely?

• What upper and lower bounds do you place on the rate at which technological progress pushes the practically achievable limits toward the hard limits above?

• What upper and lower bounds on future world population levels given that the current number is 7 billion?

From this we can then derive at least a self-consistent probability that overpopulation deniers should assign to Malthusian Crunch.