@Hvjurthuk: Maybe I should have qualified my statement. But checking correctness of a properly-written proof is much the same task as a compiler, for a computer programming language. Certainly often proofs are often not written well-enough so that one can perform the task this easily. If a referee is not feeling particularly generous, at that stage they can write back to the editor with complaints.

@LSpice: I think there's some easy ways to come to the conclusion these types of questions are in bad faith. Checking correctness of an argument is arguably the easiest task a mathematician can perform. Sure, a paper can be poorly written or a reader can be unprepared for reading a paper. But assuming the reader is ready and the paper is fairly well written, you should be able to check on your own. If you can't, then you could ask specific questions and not just "is this paper correct?"

@DavidRoberts: Certainly if their claims are the opposite of each other, that is one thing. But it's the nature of the argument, getting to the claim, that might lead to the greater contradiction.

@DavidRoberts: Alternatively, both papers could be wrong while contradicting each other.

It appears as if Paul Ehrlich is retired. The last institutional affiliation I can find for him us U. Missouri-Columbia. I find these "What was X thinking?" questions a little frustrating, as they would seemingly be better directed at X, than at MO . Perhaps it would be better to phrase it as "Did Paul Ehrlich have a valid point, and if so, what is it, specifically?"

One thing you should have in your question (regardless whether or not you post to MO) is what does "high accuracy" mean. Do you want the answer to one significant digit? 10? 10^10? etc.

The comments seemed to be taking the thread way off course. In particular, Carlo's comment (the very first) was an excellent answer. Your original question can likely be answered, but I doubt it will be any more useful than Carlo's.