Bishop Hill GWPF report press
Sep 14, 2010 Climate: Briffa Climate: CRU Climate: Jones Climate: Parliament I'll post up links to any news coverage of the GWPF report here.
Climategate whitewashers squirm like maggots on Bishop Hill's pin
Here's Fred Pearce in the Guardian:
Andrew Montford's report for Lord Lawson's sceptic thinktank raises some valid criticisms but will most likely be ignored for its brazen hypocrisy
[Montford's] report complains that the enquiries commissioned by UEA did not offer sceptics the chance to give oral evidence. He points to many instances where he says the enquiries failed properly to investigate serious allegations against academics at UEA.
Louise Gray in the Telegraph
[A] report for GWPF by Andrew Montford, a well known blogger, said the inquiries failed to ask the opinions of sceptics. He also said they were rushed and failed to ask a series of questions about why requests for information were refused or probe allegations of fraud in scientific papers.
Fiona Harvey in the FT
[I]n the latest salvo, the Global Warming Policy Foundation – a think-tank started by the UK’s former finance minister Lord Lawson – published its critical assessment of four of these inquiries on Tuesday.
“None of the panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive,” the GWPF concluded. None “managed to be objective” or “performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work” of the UEA scientists who wrote the e-mails.
Reader Comments (115)
Your Grace
Was Roger Harrabin of the BBC present at the press conference ? If so, he has failed to report it. And fails utterly to report the substance of your report or Lord Turnbull's foreword which he would have received in the press release.
That is true BBC bias - for which we are forced to pay on pain of imprisonment.
"That is true BBC bias - for which we are forced to pay on pain of imprisonment."
Sep 15, 2010 at 10:54 AM | John Anderson
No you're not. Like most of the rest of Europe, if you don't want to pay a TV licence, then don't watch TV.
@ZedsDeadBed
I think technically that's Trolling. ;)
Sep 15, 2010 at 11:18 AM | GSW
It might be, but come on! What he said was wrong, and the chances of any of the rest of you pulling him up on it are, in my opinion, zero. Not only that, but it was a highly emotive wrong claim designed to whip up dislike against an institution of which I am very fond.
This is my problem with this place. You spend all your time pulling apart the tiniest little bits of climate science, and every time you think you've found a speck of a nugget of a fragment of some form of problem, you parade it around town as 'proof' that AGW is wrong.
Yet for all these claims of scepticism, you turn absolutely none of it upon yourselves, your allies and your enemy's enemies. Monckton has recently been exposed as, quite frankly, making a lot of his schtick up. There was a bit of embarrassed murmuring at the time here, and since then the silence has been deafening.
I should also point out, that the thing that brought me here, was googling my own name (egoist - I know) and finding out how Bishop Hill posters like to manipulate discussion boards and offer each other tips on how best to distort things. There was no censoring of this blatantly dishonest behaviour and nobody piped up to say it was wrong. Yet now you're all crowing about the inquiry inquiry as though it's a sword of truth and democracy that represents you all.
You've set yourselves up as a fly in the ointment of climate science, perhaps some even think of yourselves as a collective conscience. Well my conscience doesn't allow me to stand idly by whilst lies and distortions are peddled by people conning themsleves that they're doing the right thing.
Hacked or leaked? WGAF? The contents of the emails were a disgrace to science, no amount of wiggling will change that, the shame is that others in the scientific community have held back from making their views known, presumably in the mistaken belief that they don't want to give a fellow scientist a bad name. Well scientists, I've got news for you all, this bunch of Citizen Statistician ne'erdowells is doing all of science no favours and when it all comes crashing in on them all of science will be tarred with the same brush for not confronting them.
A superb report on the 3 enquiries. Well-written, penetrating, rational, and civil. A fine contribution which I do believe will remain a substantial, oft-referenced piece of reading when the shameful saga of climate alarmism and associated establishment complicity are routine topics for study in universities, and in due course, in high schools once the current cohort of collaborators in anti-scientific, anti-industrial, intemperate scaremongering has moved out, or moved on to being better informed.
ZDB: "you parade it around town as 'proof' that AGW is wrong."
I'm a sceptic, which means I don't know if AGW is right or wrong, what I do know is that the "evidence" for it is extremely thin, and open to questioning by anyone whose been involved at even the lowest level in the scientific process.
Here's on: 50% of the recent warming can be explained by natural forcing, CO2 in the atmosphere has increased in this period, so the other 50% must be caused by the increase in CO2. I don't suppose you see anything lacking in the scientific rigour for such a statement, but I do, I want more proof, like a sum linking the two so we can test the hypothesis, after all we've spent $39Bn on climate research since around 1990, you'd think wouldn't you that someone, somewhere, would have cracked that problem by now and shut up all us sceptical deniers once and for all.
Then there are the other mysteries still unresolved, like how glaciers at 26,000ft are receding due to global warming, and if they aren't (and they aren't because the temperature at that elevation never rise above 0C), why did the UK climate science community not correct that news story.
Cumbrian Lad
You write
If you're right about partisanship, then I'm wondering if you had any objections to the fact that all those on Muir's committee who expressed a view on AGW supported the consensus i.e. that there as no-one of a more sceptical ilk? Or were you objections to, say, Philip Campbell solely due to his potentially predjudicial remarks re climategate itself?
@ZedsDeadBed
I very fond of the BBC also. BBC news reporting is respected around the world, in the main because it reports the facts as facts, minus the spin - at least as far as it is possible to do so. Dellingpole or Monbiot, you can take your pick of the other media, but the BBC cannot behave like that. Every percieved bias should be open to public scrutiny, it's the way it works.
As for the rest of your post, apologies I think it rambles a bit. You may be getting confused with WUWT, there is more ruff and tumble there, more like RealClimate, in its defence it is more tolerant of the opposing view, than RealClimate could ever be.
The 'vicarage' is like neither of those places however.
Bishop, to date and as far as I know, objections to your review have been only that 1) you are "partisan", i.e. not sufficiently impartial, 2) you were paid by the GWPF for this review and that the GWPF's funding arrangements have not been disclosed, and 3) there have been a few minor mistakes such as spelling errors.
Unless and until someone produces a detailed and factual rebuttal of the contents of your report, it would therefore appear that the points you have made are uncontested, and there is nothing that has emerged in the recent articles by Fred Pearce, James Randerson, Roger Harrabin, Louise Gray or Fiona Harvey that would suggest to me otherwise.
So - well done.
Sep 15, 2010 at 12:40 PM | GSW
Ramble it does, I've never been good at the whole brevity thing. Doesn't mean I'm not right though.
Almost never go to WUWT and have no real desire to. But it was deception and distortion that bought me to this place, and since I've noticed it, I see there is a steady stream of the same most days that goes unchallenged.
John posted something which was blatantly false, so I picked him up on it.
So from time to time, I'm going to pop in and challenge it.
Zed
"if you don't want to pay a TV licence, then don't watch TV"
The licence is for the apparatus, not the use of it, so your comment is just as 'blatantly false' as JA's, if you want to play that game.
ZBD,
You are a gift that just keeps on giving. A tree of little trollisms that are always becoming ripe. You must need to post so often to prevent their becoming rancid in your little garden.
There is no evidence at all that outside hackers broke into UEA servers, snatched the e-mails off of the servers and posted them out. The file existed. It was labled FOIA, since it was collected under FOIA requests that UEA leadership decided to stonewall and not release, knowing they were damning.
Your reaction- which is indistinguishable from the reaction of any hardcore true believer in any cult to the information- is to avoid the information and pretend that the process by which it was dissiminated is not acceptable to you, so instead of dealing with it, you pretend it does not count.
So please, troll on. You are only convincing reasonable people of just how unreasonable AGW is.
By the way, a real investigation would involve getting UEA to open up all of its e-mail records so as to determine the actual context of the e-mail samples that were placed in the CRU FOIA file. Since we know they were stonewalling the requests, it is also reasonable to think about how many more interesting e-mails they sat on.
Another step in a credible investigation would be to bring in those who had been requesting data from CRU, and to hear what they tried to do and how CRU responded to their requests. Also, is it not time for audits to actually look at the data quality and the uses of the data CRU has done?
And of course, the most important part of any investigation would be financial- follow the money: who gave what to whom, and how much and why?
GSW
I sent this to the BBC and Graham Stringer this a.m.
----------------------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11303686
I'm disapponted to see no visible link, to the GWPF report in the article..
I thought the BBC would care to inform its readers, in the age of the web, surely a link is not too hard.
Actually, why would the BBC not do this, in the interest of the general public.
Similary Lord Turnbull and the report are stating that all the Climategate Inquiries were flawed, and explains in great detail why.
Even Fred Pearce in the Guardain, talks about this..
Guardian: Montford lands some solid blows in review of 'climategate' inquiries
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/sep/14/montford-climategate-gwpf-review
Yet the BBC choose a different headline - which may be perceived as deflecting away the 'damage' that this report to AGW activists,
and the story gets 'buried.
If the BBC is going to quote Miller...
Why not quote Graham Stringer, HoC select commitee, from the Register.
"That is NOT science, BUT literature"
On Briffa (Climate Resaerch Unit, UEA, being unable to reproduce his own results)
A damming as possible quote on the state of CRU/IPCC 'science.
I would think given Briffa's role at the IPCC and the heavy involvement of CRU staff in the IPCC,
that Graham Stringer's (MP) views would be very relevant and of interest to the general public and show balnce on this issue.
Graham Stringer was at the GWPF meeting and asked some questions, I wonder what he will do next:
Graham Stringer:
"Everybody on the [House of Commons Science and Technology] Committee last time asked that there be no gaps between our report, and the Muir Russell report and the Oxburgh Report - but there are huge gaps. The Muir Russell people and the Oxburgh people didn't talk to each other, so there were bound to be gaps. We are left with the science left unlooked at. --Graham Stringer MP, The Register, 10 September 2010
"Graham Stringer says the practices exposed at CRU undermine the scientific value of paleoclimatology, in which CRU is a world leader. "When I asked Oxburgh if [Keith] Briffa [CRU academic] could reproduce his own results, he said in lots of cases he couldn't. "That just isn't science. It's literature. If somebody can't reproduce their own results, and nobody else can, then what is that work doing in the scientific journals?" Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 10 September 2010
Ross Mckitrick also has an update report, on the climategate Inquiries, this appears to be even more comprehensive, and in detail, than the GWPF report.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Are you sure the BBC is being as 'balanced' as the BBC charter demands.
I really don't think 'climategate is going to go away.
The bbc still has a chance to regain its reputation for impatiality
---------------------
To be fair to Roger Harrabin, I bet the Editor's get to choose the headlines...
And I have had a reply, from someone at the BBC
"That you only find hyperlinks in blogs not in regular online BBC articles...." - paraphrased
(presumably across all news, thus a very strange policy the rest of the reply is private, but 'suprise' was expressed)
Te above was a copy, of the email, that I put into Richard Black's Earthwatch (he's back from holiday) just so Richard Black knows as well.. ;)
@ZedsDeadBed
I do understand the point you are making. But the BBC isn't really positioned as a "take it or leave it service", like sky etc. It is supposed to be responsive to the needs and criticisms of the license payers (i.e us) in a way that other broadcasters are not.
I think the consequences of the not having a license are correct; if you don't have a license, you pay a fine, if you don't pay the fine you go to prision. Your TV is confiscated as well.
the BBC, unlike all other UK media, is by its public charter, supposed to be 'impartial'
@Barry Woods
Interesting Barry, the more one looks at Harrabins BBC report, and considers the options as to what could be reported, he appears to have been very selective. As far as I am aware, very little has said in in support of UEA, the science and the Inquiries yesterday , but Harrabin found it and quoted on that exclusively. Strange.
Also Barry,
The Editor choosing the headline. That may be true, but it is in keeping with the rest of the article. Harrabin chose to expend most of the column inches on that topic.
"The licence is for the apparatus, not the use of it, so your comment is just as 'blatantly false' as JA's, if you want to play that game."
Sep 15, 2010 at 1:28 PM | James P
No - the licence is for watching television as it is being broadcast live. If you have all the apparatus, but can demonstrate that you are not able to receive a live feed, then you do not need to pay the television licence.
How can a website that likes to think it accurately dissects science, not even take the time to do simple fact checking before commenting?
@ZedsDeadBed
Sorry you are nearly right, it just needs to be capable of recieving the broadcast (which they all are) unplugging it from the wall or not having a permanent arial are not a sufficient defence.
It is true that news articles on the BBC website do not contain links in the text eg in this case to the Montford report or the press summary. But BBC articles frequently have such links at the side of the article. Harrabin knew the links, but failed to get them published.
I am finding it hard to assess Harrabin. His report is different from all the others - and starkly different from the Fred Pearce article which spells out the key points of the Montford review.
Harrabin's article is about the same length - but appears to deliberately evade most of what Montford and Lord Turnbull. Even if he was not at the press conference (if not, why not?), he would have received the full press release.
Charitably I had earlier considered that Harrabin is simply not up to the task of understanding and reporting on the complexities of it all. In which case he should be shunted off somewhere else, or made redundant.
But taking his latest article together with his recent two pieces on Radio 4, I feel increasingly that he is deliberately evasive, that he puts on an act of saying there may be other points of view - but then deliberately obscures or fails to report properly those points of view. In the present case he will have known for some time that the Montford report was due - I think he has used that time to think up a way of blunting its effect while appearing to "report" on it.
Either way - I believe he is unfit to be reporting on issues of such economic importance. His record of reporting right from the start of ClimateGate has been pathetic.
Sorry to harp on about the BBC - but it is crucial in forming public opinion in the UK, it is the biggest "news" organisation in the world.
It's not surprising that the two sides view the release of the Climategate e-mails differently.
Skeptics focus on the content, which unequivocally shows that many leading Warmist scientists have not behaved in a truthful manner over a long period of time.
Faced by this unpalatable truth, Warmies must fight to shift the focus of the debate onto the manner of the hacking, or 'stealing' of the e-mails, as though that would somehow negate their devastating content.
It is one thing for the BBC to be be intent on generating public alarm about climate. It is another to insist that we pay them for it if we wish to watch any other TV stations. I suspect this decadent 'corporation of de facto civil servants' would dwindle away like 'The Independent' if and when they were ever to become 'independent' of the state, and its revenue-collection apparatus.
ZBD
On the Climategate emails AND data:
I have no idea whether they were hacked or leaked, I have seen no reports proving the issue either way. In terms of legality, surely the test is whether or not putting those emails in the public domain was in the public interest?
"In terms of legality, surely the test is whether or not putting those emails in the public domain was in the public interest?"
Sep 15, 2010 at 3:07 PM | Dung
It is an incredibly tricky one this. A good example of what I (who really am a committed libertarian) see as following the letter of the FOIA almost taking you away from the spirit of it.
I view the placing of some some chap's private emails in the public domain as having done far more harm than good, but deniers view at as a good few Christmases rolled into one.
I hate having to admit that it's probably made them smarten up their act, but it has.
However,
Global warming is clearly happening and we are a major contributor to that through release of CO2. For a variety of reasons I listed earlier this week, there are many people for whom tackling this would be a bad thing. Thus their product is doubt, and climategate enabled a massive sale.
@ZedsDeadBead
Appreciate the conciliatory tone of your post and respect for your position on AGW. ;)
OK ZBD
There is more than one reason it might be in the public interest;
1) It throws light on the way in which IPCC manipulated data to attempt to justify the hockey stick.
2) It shows how Emirates scientists (I am going with the flow here hehe) wanted to have emails deleted in light of an upcoming FOIA request.
3) Emirates scientists are shown trying to keep "sceptical" scientific articles from being published in journals..
All of the above do (as you say) cast doubt on the current conesnsus.
Hopefully you accept that the Hockey Stick graph was badly flawed (even Gavin Schmidt and Phil Jones have said paleoclimate reconstructions can not be accurate farther back than 1500) and that there is therefore no proof that current warming is unprecidented. That just leaves CO2.
CO2 has a direct warming effect...agreed
Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere....agreed
CO2 has a secondary warming effect causing negative feedbacks through water vapour....not agreed
IPCC AR3 contains a formula showing it agrees that the direct warming effect of CO2 is logarithmic NOT a constant rate of increase of temp. So in order to get "each unit of temperature rise" you have to added larger and larger amounts of CO2 and by now that direct effect has worked through and there is no more warming to come.
Scientist are still arguing about the feedbacks, the honest statement would be that there is no agreement there.
zeb..
We disagree, that man made is CO2 is the major cause...
The science seems to be, we can't explain the warming of the late 20th century, therefore it 'must' be us,(whilst in the last ten years, temps shall we say plateaued..., the cru scientists were puzzled by this)
'must' is not proof or very scientific... just the start of a hypothesis, to be tested for.
positive feedbacks
consensus
Sep 15, 2010 at 4:12 PM | Dung
Hi Dung - climategate might have taken a slight sheen off the public consensus, but it's still a clear majority. It made (virtually) no difference to the scientific one which is evidentially-based.
Crucially though, we've just had three different independent inquiries which manifestly concluded that the UEA did not manipulate data - I don't know where you got that one from.
ZDB
This thread is about the Global Warming Policy Foundation report, written by The Bishop and published yesterday.
He has reviewed all the previous investigations and given chapter and verse (with appropriate links and references) as to what was wrong with them.
No scientist or journalist has so far disagreed with anything The Bish said in his review.
If you read that then you will know where I got my stuff from :)
Talking of the Independent, I've had a look at their website and cannot find this story at all. The latest in the Climate Change section is an article on Prince Charles warning about a shortage of fun for global-warming afflicted future generations. The most recent in the Science section is one about 50% of restaurant dishcloths containing dangerous levels of bacteria, and the latest in UK Politics is about Mervyn King talking to the unions.
I've either missed the story completely (very possible), or they haven't reported it (yet.) Anyone able to find it in the Indy?
ZBD
Also absolutely nobody who posts on this site is interested in "The Consensus", we dont care how many scientists agree with each other and we dont care how few of us are interested in evidence, facts and truth. I am not trying to be funny or mock you but that is what we are all about.
When I say we, I have no degree or PHD or doctorate (humph) but I am intelligent enough to sift through facts, opinions, scientific theories and grasp most of the meanings.
Many on this site are incredibly well qualified to take issue on a pure science basis and slug it out with the best.
@Dung
Err, I hope most of us are interested 'evidence, facts and truth'. Its the ones that aren't, on either side, that I have a problem with. Maybe I misunderstood your comment.
Alex
"a shortage of fun for global-warming"
That's what happens when Bishops turn up.. :-)
GSW
I was trying to say that we are not peruaded by an argument simply because the consensus of scientists say it is true. Sorry if I got it wrong ^.^
Zed
"How can a website that likes to think it accurately dissects science, not even take the time to do simple fact checking before commenting?"
Strange to complain that your comments are allowed. In any case, the Bishop is not responsible for them, or mine, or anyone else's, and since you were wrong twice on the TV licence question, I'd keep quiet about it. Especially if you haven't got one.
Ah GSW
I see my error
I should have said something like " we dont care how few of us there are who still consider evidence facts and truth"
My error :(
Bad Dung
In case it has not yet been posted - the coverage by the Daily Express is here :
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/199607/Climate-change-Failures-of-global-warming-probes-let-down-public
Funny really - one might hardly expect the Express to give a more accurate report than the BBC. But I assume the Express writer was simply trying to report properly. Harrabin was doing something else.
Ah Dung,
Thanks for that, you had me going for a while. What a relief, I has getting quite depressed ;)
Somehow I got the top three recommended posts at the Fred Pearce Grauniad article. Not much support for his criticisms.
@John Anderson
Thanks for that, I've updated the table as promised. Missed Randerson before so added that also
Daily Express (Ingham)
"CLIMATE CHANGE: FAILURES OF GLOBAL WARMING PROBES ‘LET DOWN PUBLIC"
Telegraph (Dellingpole):-
"Climategate whitewashers squirm like maggots on Bishop Hill's pin"
Telegraph (Gray)
"Doubt remains over 'climategate'"
Guardian (Pearce):-
"Montford lands some solid blows in review of 'climategate' inquiries"
Guardian (Randerson)
"'Climategate' inquiries were 'highly defective', report for sceptic thinktank rules"
FT (Harvey):-
"‘Climategate’ inquiries ‘flawed’, sceptics say"
BBC (Harrabin):-
"Call to replace UN climate chiefs" (me, wha?)
Current score: BBC reporting 1, Rest of World 6
I hope nobody suggests that we have 30yrs of this before we can say there is any significant bias in Harrabin's BBC reporting :)
Dear @ZedsDeadBed.
I asked you to respond to a few simple questions a couple of nights ago, but you failed to do so.
Yet, I can see after returning to this site that you have an amazing amount of time to devote to this site.
But not to answering simple, direct questions. So I wont bother with you again after this posting.
BTW: Peer reviewed paper based on non-tree ringed proxies show a +1 deg C rise above the modern warm period ....in China for the Medieaval Warm Period. ...Extra, Extra, Read all about it. I wont bother with a link because you would not look it up anyway.
So what are you?
Unemployed? - not dishonourable - it does happen to the best of us from time to time
Student? If so, focus on the course work and exams
Minor civil servant (aka unemployed)? - Absolutely no sympathy at all.
Och Mon! you should get out more. I believe Truro can be very nice at this time of year. The grockles have left and winter has yet to begin.
I must say, you are very brave and persistant to battle away like this on a site that is clearly populated by first order denialist , recidivist running dogs of capitalist counter revolutionary reactionary elements and white army rumour mongers :-)
yours etc. but sadly for the last time.
Dropstone.
Sep 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM | Dropstone
As promised, was on line yesterday and ready to go until the afternoon. The thread however was disabled, so I couldn't access your questions to read or answer them.
If you look at the next thread along (Jones in El Pais) you will see that I was trying to hunt you down at 12.41pm for the exact purpose of answering your questions.
I was ready to go, it's the site that wasn't. So I'd suggest it's a little unfair of you to suggest I'm being evasive, but if you weren't aware and didn't look, I guess you wouldn't have known.
Anyway, I'm having a wind down wine now, so won't do science tonight, but I'll probably be back on line before the weekend so post here and I'll answer here.
Incidentally, your point on looking up papers. I was trying to have a decent debate with some guy called Peter Wilson who insisted I look up a 30-odd page paper by Pielke. I duly did so, and had to reread the bugger 3 times because I was so sure I'd missed something. In the end, I had to conclude that Peter himself hadn't actually read it, as it completely undermined him. Pointed this out and he's vanished and not replied.
So I most certainly do read papers, but I won't read all of them. This is a hobby for me. Regardless of your speculations of my personal and financial life, the time I can devote to this is finite. When you're taking on 40 people, you're not going to be able to respond to all of them. And as I found out with Peter, some people seem to enjoy simply eating my time.
"Strange to complain that your comments are allowed. In any case, the Bishop is not responsible for them, or mine, or anyone else's, and since you were wrong twice on the TV licence question, I'd keep quiet about it. Especially if you haven't got one."
Sep 15, 2010 at 6:25 PM | James P
Firstly James, I was not complaining that my own comments were allowed, what a strange thing to say. I was pointing out that on this supposedly sceptical website, when a clear error from a 'friend' is posted, it's very rarely picked up on by other commenters. Which suggests hypocrisy. If you're all seeking the truth, then you'd do well to police each other.
Secondly, I most certainly was not wrong even once on the TV licence issue. Both my statements about it are correct, I could tediously go through and explain how, link the the licensing site and disect the conversation above, but shan't unless it proves absolutely necessary.
Thirdly, I most certainly do have a TV licence. To fail to do so, whilst enjoying Auntie, is to expect others to foot my bill and to essentially steal. Really not my bag at all.
The subject of this thread is the GWPF report press coverage. Any further off topic posts will be deleted.
Reading thru the Daily Express article, I was quite impressed. John Ingham. Environment Editor, produced a well constructed impartial piece. A lesson to others - this is how you do it;
1.) You cover the main points of the GWPF report as presented.
2.) You set aside some space at the end to cover the reactions of the opposing team.
All clearly and correctly attributed. Its Simples! Just tell it like it is.
GSW,
Correct on the Express article. The UEA response published therein is interesting:
Which doesn't actually rebut the Bishop's report...it repeats accurately the reports' conclusions about the CRU scientists, and inaccurately claims that the reports had anything to say about the anthropogenic contribution to global warming. Nothing about the reports' thoroughness or objectivity. In other words, it's a stock response.
Where do we go from here? The next few days will be interesting, at present the firefighting appears to have stopped almost universally. This could be a double edged sword. No complaints, no publicity, a simple "nothing new" from UEA and everybody goes quiet?
Somehow I can't see the review not getting it's just reward? Todate only partly provided by LuLu.