Based on a idea from Nick Bostrom.
Suit A: "Welcome to our futurology meeting extravaganza, where we are going to do a complete analysis of the future using... drumroll... Scenario analysis!"
All: "All hail mighty scenario analysis!"
Suit A: "So, what are the big risks in the future?"
Suit B: "Global warming? I heard that's bad."
Suit A: "Indeed it is. What else do we have that's bad?"
Suit C: "How about obesity?"
Suit B: "I still think global warming is rather more important, it's getting hot and..."
Suit C: "Well, my grandfather was fat, and he suffered and died because..."
Suit A: "No need to argue, gentlewomen! We'll simply do a scenario analysis with both variables. So here we have the Sweaty Fat quadrant... Let me put it up on the board:"
Suit A: "Now let's give each scenario a thorough analysis!"
Suit D: "Isn't fat an insulant?"
Suit A: "That's the kind of incisive commentary we need!"
...
...
Much later:
Suit C: "So we have an ideal strategy: keep an eye on sweat pants purchase, and adjust our investment accordingly."
Suit D: "What about our social responsibilities?"
Suit A: "Good point."
Suit B: "Well, then we can track the size of suits and ice cream consumption and adjust health spending and gas subsidies in function of these."
Suit A: "Well, I think we've done a fabulous job today; really. No-one could have done a better job predicting than us. And it's all thanks to... Scenario analysis!"
All: "All hail!"
(very tangentially connected to the problem of models that are over-precise in narrow areas)
I am.
But if we're going to analyse scenario planning seriously - which I certainly didn't here - we need to look at older scenario planning attempts, and see how useful they were.
If you admit that this is an unfair strawman, then why are you bothering to post it?