For background, details and documentation of the issue, I suggest starting with these recent posts:
- A Primer on Egregious Errors in IPCC WG2 on Disasters (background and more links)
- What Does Pielke Think About This? (how the IPCC made up information about my views)
- Castles Built on Sand (what the unpublished report relied on by the IPCC actually said when published)
UPDATE 24 Jan: At the Telegraph Geoffry Lean misinterprets the significance of the disasters story, suggesting that it was about referencing a non-peer reviewed source. In fact it was about referencing a non-peer reviewed source to make a claim that was not true, and contrary to what the peer reviewed literature actually said (and what the non-peer reviewed source said when published).
Comments and questions are welcome, on this or other topics you find at the site.