2 - He is deliberately couching everything he says in 'weasel words' so as to never risk being wrong.
This is often because he has to grossly simplify what his actual research has said in order for it to be consumable by a mass audience.
The papers may spell out certain prerequisites and gotchas quite explicitly, but in a TV interview, that turns into a vague-sounding "it depends".
1 - Why do they keep interviewing him about the future but never talk about how accurate he was in the past.
I've often wished that people who made predictions for a living were forced to assign probabilities to their statements, and give some clear definition, so we could keep score.
1 - Why do they keep interviewing him about the future but never talk about how accurate he was in the past.
2 - He is deliberately couching everything he says in 'weasel words' so as to never risk being wrong.
But he wears a suit, has a position of authority and looks like he should know what he is talking about, that seems to be all they want.
Much of the world is a confidence trick.