For amusement only.
Fizzissist,
On the insurance I was talking future. I took a quick look at AIG. They are extremely diversified multi line company. I'm not sure there are many pure play minimally diversified insurance companies out there. One example would be what yahoo references a portion of AIG business with some language resembling "non systemic risk". Best example is Lloyds of London which insured unique risk situations like a cargo ship crossing the atlantic. My insurance carrier, State Farm, has Lloyds tacked on to the name. I live on the very edge of town. Mega subdivisions, high end large lot developments, I'm backed up to a couple thousand acres which include city owned watershed properties.
As for how much measurement it would require to answer the core question. I don't complete buy what they are saying. Similarly, I can create a long bibliography list at the end of my research but kind of like Rodney Dangerfield in Back to School, don't buy used books because the guy who highlighted it before you could have been a complete idiot ; ) Further being constrained by others works limits your methodologies. These methodologies may not have been intended to answer the question at hand. Lastly, the path of interpretation might not be the most relevant, concise or expedient. Yes peer reviewed, but peers like it when you agree with there work.
I keep seeing the detractors use words like Clinton when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Using one of your recent posts, Global hurricanes. Anyhow we are in the preliminary stages, 30 years from now a model may be moot point. I'm reading a fictional book on some global effect and ironically they curtailed funding all predictive modeling; )
Heisenberg:
I believe that the existence of the classical "path" can be pregnantly formulated as follows: The "path" comes into existence only when we observe it. --Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927
In the sharp formulation of the law of causality-- "if we know the present exactly, we can calculate the future"-it is not the conclusion that is wrong but the premise.
--Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927
My view if we knew the future with great certainty then we might curl up and die. Not necessarily in reference to this question but because the predictibility would be a bit soul deadening.
A few final things.
In my experience if your models show that the outcome could be none to severe the median outcome is a moderate effect the corresponding probabilities are smaller on either side (none or high). Of course it is emphasizing the quality of predicting a given outcome.
Again, I'm not saying the end is nigh. Anyone saying there will be some important effects will attract great scrutiny and attacks. Confidence that nothing major will occur is better than considering some imminent threat. Look at what happened to the market after 9/11 and the bursting of y2k exhuberence.
Anyhow, I think we can circle around with point, counterpoint but I'm not sure if this really productive. That's why I didn't respond until now and am bowing out. Kinda like a tickle, it's amusing but you want it to stop