Wow! What a ridiculous excuse!
First of all, even IF the power of the laser was rated by IR + green, the IR diverges at a completelly different rate, coming from the laser. People say it's like a flashlight.. Not quite, but you get the picture. Even if they both came from the same point source, the lens would have to be an achromat, to collimate them both into the same beam.
People keep saying, that cheap greens are rated IR + green, or that IR has a big influence in the burning power of a cheap green laser, but that is not completelly true. And now manufacturers and/or sellers are using this as an excuse? Uncollimated IR doesn't help burn anything and it doesn't really add to the power. And if you measure from a distance, it is almost completelly eliminated from the measurement.
But i digress... Get that laser close to the thermopile - two inches or so, and there is NO WAY, that it would not pick up and display everything coming out of it in that approximate direction, including the warmth of the laser.
It's not like you're using an optical meter. And if you were to measure an unfiltered 80mW green on an optical meter, in the 532nm setting, it would show ~400mW. Not because there is 80mW of green and 320 of IR, but because the optical meter uses the multiplier for 532nm for both the green and the IR, and comes up with a number way too high.
So IF your meter was wavelength dependent, like they claim, it would much more likelly be showing too much, not too little.
The wavelength setting on a thermal meter like that is only meant to correct for small difference in the absorption rate of the coating, and to get the result even closer to the actual power, because no matter how good the coating, small differences will always remain. But they can't account for 60% of a laser's power!
And to proove the point, set the meter to 808 and 1064 and measure again.. The result won't be much different from what it is now.
Is this a seller on this forum? :-?