Intellectual and philosophical consistency. It’s nice to have but not essential. There is no obligation on people to be consistent, but when they are not, they should at least acknowledge it. For example, consider the following two statements from the same person:
From 20 May 2018:
The future is unknowable. We can’t forecast the economy even a year ahead with any accuracy, but what we can be most sure of is that, even with pure motivations, a mechanical projection out 10 years is highly likely to be way off-beam.
From 20 November 2013:
Did I ever doubt that climate change represented by far the greatest threat to Australia’s future economic prosperity? Never. Should I have said this more often, rather than chasing a thousand economic will-o’-the-wisps? Yes.
When it comes to Treasury’s budget forecasts and projections, they are nonsense. When it comes to climate forecasts and projections, they must be taken as irrefutable; as if published on stone tablets.
And who made those statements? I think Judith Sloan describes him as the suburban accountant.
In the 2018 article, the accountant also wrote this:
Even without the ever-present temptation to fudge, projections are a device for deluding ourselves.
Follow I Am Spartacus on Twitter at @Ey_am_Spartacus