Roger Pielke Jr. has spent the past month bitching about how inappropriately the IPCC treated work he commissioned, but authored by Robert Muir-Wood, on climate change and the cost of natural disasters. Now Mr. Muir-Wood's company, RMS (Risk Management Solutions) has come out with a statement on this very topic which, on the surface, contradicts young Roger, or at least suggests that Mr. Muir-Wood does not share his outrage:
Yes, RMS believes the IPCC fairly referenced its paper, with suitable caveats around the results, highlighting the factors influencing the relationship that had been discovered between time and increased catastrophe costs. We believe it was appropriate to include the RMS paper in the report because, at that time, it was the only paper addressing global multi-peril catastrophe losses over time that had been normalized for changes in the values and exposure at risk.
When I asked Roger how this statement squared his earlier complaints, he followed up with a post where he reiterated his contention that the "IPCC intentionally mis-cited" the paper. But an intentional mis-cite is, surely, an "unfair" reference, yet Mr. Muir-Wood insists his paper was treated fairly by the IPCC. Roger surely has a little more work to do. Arm-waving in the direction of an audio-cast that is supposed to explain everything doesn't really cut it.