You forgot the quotes around "economist". Economics is still not science, it's getting closer; but the whole field ignores stuff and deals with spherical cows to simplify complexities.
You know you can be a "professional X" without X being a science, right? It simply means that X is your profession. Some examples of professions that are not sciences: racer, chef, journalist, writer, singer.
Yes, but those professions have agreed upon norms and standards that can be measured.
Did you win, Does it taste good, is it accurate and easy to follow, etc...
Economists are all over the place you an pick and choose different theories to support any Point of view.
I'm sorry, but no, they don't. Out of all of the examples I used, only one has agreed-upon norms and standards that can be measured: racing.
All the other examples I used -- chef, journalist, writer, singer -- can win awards and recognition: Michelin stars, Pulitzer, Hugo, Nebula, Grammy, and such. Those are good indicators of their accomplishments, but that's not the same as having a set of "agreed-upon norms and standards that can be measured".
And if you decide to relax your criteria and say that having those is acceptable, then guess what? There's a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, and a slew of other awards for economists.
Like it or not, studying economics is something that people can and do dedicate their lives to. Would it be better if we had more clarity, transparency, and consensus when it comes to what they do? Absolutely. But dismissing the whole profession out of hand is unhelpful.
I don't dismiss the profession. I dismiss the professionals. They need to provide more proof then identifying as a professional exactly because it is not a science. I also need to understand their biases and agenda.
Honestly it's usually easier to just ignore them and give their opinion no weight greater then anyone else.
I agree with everything you wrote except that last sentence, and that is exactly what I refer to as "dismissing the profession". Understanding their biases and agenda is by no means trivial, or even easy, but it's most likely a lot easier than spending all the time they spent on studying the subject matter.
This, of course, makes it wildly inaccurate.