I found that odd too, but maybe things are a changing. For a long time she was the voice in the wilderness. Now it looks like she is gaining a chorus.
This article at SEPP implies that the IPCC generated assumptions to get the results they wanted:
"If what they say is true, then the methodology used is untenable and hence the results are the same. I can't believe anyone would start with an emissions projection, then make an estimate of the relationship between emissions and growth, and finally calculate growth residually. This is the relationship absolutely backward."
But that, apparently, is exactly what the IPCC's economic project did: It worked backward. Formally known as the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, the official IPCC group set about creating economic forecasts that appear to support average world temperature increases of somewhere between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees over the next 100 years. But the SRES, by imposing emissions forecasts on economic models, adopted scenarios that economists say make no sense.