Climatic Heresy: 3

Red Hot Lies book cover

(Charles Platt is a guest blogger)

In the 1990s an attorney named Christopher Horner was appropriately disconcerted when Enron, his employer at the time, told him to lobby in favor of restrictions on carbon emissions during negotiations relating to the Kyoto treaty. Enron liked the idea of regulations that would raise the operating costs of coal-fired power stations, because it wanted to make more money from its pipelines supplying gas. (Natural gas creates about half as much CO2 as coal per unit of energy released, according to DoE figures.)

Thus one of the most despised corporations in history shared the interests of environmental activists. In fact, according to Horner, Enron donated almost a million dollars to the Nature Conservancy. Meanwhile some provisions of the Kyoto treaty were endorsed by BP (which owns companies that manufacture solar power systems) and General Electric (which has a substantial interest in wind power).

Massive government programs always create a feeding frenzy among large corporations. If we fight a war against climate change, how many new Halliburtons will profit from it? How many are exaggerating the consequences of warming right now, simply to further their own interests?

Christopher Horner’s recent book, Red Hot Lies, is an angry denunciation of “green” lobbyists who have a vested interest in subsidies for alternative energy. High on his list is Al Gore. He wants to know how Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection came up with $300 million for a public education campaign, and what the donors of this huge sum may be hoping to gain in return. During a 60 Minutes episode, Gore refused to reveal their names.

According to an estimate by Bloomberg News, Gore was worth about $2 million when he left office; but Fast Company reported that after pursuing his new career as an environmental activist for a few years, his net worth had grown to more than $100 million. He is a partner in Kleiner Perkins, which is putting $1.2 billion into “green” technologies that are unlikely to be profitable unless they receive government subsidies. He has put $35 million of his own money into Capricorn Investment Group LLC, a hedge fund that invests in eco-friendly products. During a speech at a TED conference, Gore stated that he also owns stock in numerous startups developing solar power, geothermal power, and fuel cells. (My source for these statements is here). Therefore, apparently he will be enriched by legislation favoring alternate energy. While we may respect his sincere belief in anthropogenic global warming, we may also note that he has a huge conflict of interest.

The more I thought about this, the more it bothered me—causing me to draw a chart suggesting some of the financial relationships that may exist (see below).

Christopher Horner’s book uses an in-your-face style that I find abrasive, and his uncompromising attitude has caused Greenpeace to label him a “Climate Criminal.” Still, the questions he raises are significant.

Al Gore conflict of interest chart


  1. Strangely, even though I’m a lifelong environmentalist and a professional environmental chemist I didn’t vote for Al Gore. I’ve never seen his big movie.

    My interest in Al Gore ended circa 1999 with Occidental Petroleum and the helicopters used to protect their pipelines.

    Also, he invented flowcharts.

  2. Actually, Al Gore drew up this exact chart before embarking on his study of global warming. And then he said, “Buuuwahhahaa” and proceeded to foist his “Fear Meme” on the public to make some cash.

    Question climate change if you must. But your chart is ridiculous.

  3. Charles, I’d be interested in what “vested interests” the scientists who participated in the IPCC had?

    What’s the vested interest coming from peer-reviewed, respected journals such as Nature? AFAIK neither Holtzbrinck nor Elsevier have any interest in hysteria, green energy, or anything else, except publishing scientific material (and extracting monopoly rents from academic institutions).

  4. “But your chart is ridiculous.”

    Can you please be more specific? Are there any links that you dispute? Or are we just arguing about motivation? I made it clear that I am open to the idea that Gore is sincere. I just raised a significant conflict of interest, which undeniably exists.

    Incidentally this conflict is far bigger, financially, than the conflicts of interest alleged against warming skeptics who supposedly receive funding from oil companies.

  5. I disagree on quite fundamental grounds with Charles Platt’s last three guest posts. But I congratulate Boingboing on hosting them. It is never — never — a bad thing to hear a different, well-argued point of view.

  6. Your chart is ridiculous because all it does is show that “Government” has a lot of money flowing into and out of it. Tell us something we don’t know.

  7. It is never — never — a bad thing to hear a different, well-argued point of view.

    Buy that man an adult beverage!

  8. Wait a minute, didn’t you say just an article or two back that cutting carbon/etc. would be really expensive, and now you’re arguing that it would be quite profitable, and that said profit is the motivator.

  9. “Wait a minute, didn’t you say just an article or two back that cutting carbon/etc. would be really expensive, and now you’re arguing that it would be quite profitable, and that said profit is the motivator.”

    I believe it will be expensive for those of us whose taxes support the subsidies. It will be profitable for those who receive the subsidies.

  10. I’m going to argue why I think the chart is ridiculous:

    1. it is a particularly hard to understand chart (for me). The normal purpose of a flow chart is supposed to display in an easy to understand manner the relations between things, the chart above seems a mess and as such it does not fulfill the supposed purpose of a chart(although I have to admit that I have always appreciated language as opposed to charts as a means of communication, and I am not a great liker of charts).

    2. In fact what I get from the chart seems to be something like the invention of the paranoid style of argumentation in chart form. As such I find it interesting. It looks like what I imagine a chart explaining how the illuminati and Freemasons control everything would look, with the Illuminati being replaced by Al Gore, and the Freemasons by Government. This however is just an impression. It would be a great chart in a comic book to give the impression of holy shit this stuff is screwed up. The skrulls are everywhere!

    Now as for the argument I agree that the conflict of interest for Gore or any other Environmentalist who has become successful through environmentalism exists. But it is no more than the conflict of interest that exists for anyone that has found a problem that needs to be fixed or a service that needs to be provided when that problem or service comes into the discussion. The problem is not just related to their money, generally, but also to their sense of self, of how they view themselves.

    Al Gore probably is sincere, I believe so, and thus to question that Global Warming is what he says it is – is to question his sincerely held beliefs.

    Many successful Environmentalist organizers have achieved their success from finding a problem and calling attention to it, thus moving from a situation of no financial reward to a situation of financial reward (note this statement is for the sake of argumentation, most environmentalists do not make the kind of money that would justify in a corporate manner the amount of work they put in on issues).

    The argument about environmentalist warnings being overblown because they derive financial benefit from them and proving this financial benefit by pointing at the current funding they receive avoids addressing the fact that they often started working on something without funding. That is to say the current financial success of environmentalism was started from a state of no financial reward – if you argue that they are not to be trusted because they derive benefits now implies that they were to be trusted when their benefits where negligible or nil. Thus when climate scientists who started warning about the current situation years ago were to be trusted then but not now, evidently.

    Now global warming skeptics on the other hand tend to receive funding from entities that were already in place to provide the funding and had ample reasons to provide the funding to dispute environmentalist claims. This makes the conflict of interest for warming skeptics different in quality, even if it is not bigger in quantity.

    Now I will agree to suppose that the environmental scientist if they are a good one does get better financing, but I would also like to note that a good scientist probably gets better financing than a bad scientist.

    (following example not supposed to represent how real science works, but is an approximation of how things often work in the funding of science)
    Let’s suppose that we have two scientists:

    The good scientist gets a lot funding for good science (as well as important fringe benefits like intellectual respect), but he runs a risk of losing his funding if his experiments do not produce any useful results. He can of course fake the expected results but then he is no longer doing good science and thus is risking loosing funding for good science.

    The bad scientist gets less funding for bad science (and is widely despised as a hack), but he runs no risk of losing his funding because his purpose is to be a hack that produces the asked for results.

    It seems to me that this model is very like the situation of ‘Environmental scientists’ and ‘Global Warming Skeptics’.

    Finally it seems that the argument about financial conflicts of interest often conflates the interests of individuals and organizations.

    The conflict for individuals might seem that environmentalists are more conflicted, but the conflict for organizations should show that environmental organizations tend to have much lower profits than organizations that argue against various environmental propositions.


    “Thus one of the most despised corporations in history shared the interests of environmental activists. In fact, according to Horner, Enron donated almost a million dollars to the Nature Conservancy. Meanwhile some provisions of the Kyoto treaty were endorsed by BP (which owns companies that manufacture solar power systems) and General Electric (which has a substantial interest in wind power).”

    This is not surprising to me, what would be surprising would be if BP wholeheartedly endorsed everything about Kyoto and has not lobbied against certain provisions.

    A million dollars, whooa that’s a lot of money! /sarcasm

    Finally, by your reasoning about conflicts of interest Horner is not to be trusted about anything since he has the conflict of trying to sell a book. The conflict of interest argument applied to everything is the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing. What it ignores is that what conflicts with various people is not just money, and even in conflicts of money the relative quantities in conflict are important.

    ok, this is has probably been more time than I should have devoted to this post.

  11. This has been argued to death now.

    I want to get on with actions, there is no reason to waste more time with conspiracy theories now that science has spoken ….

  12. Shouldn’t you also include a profit chart for the Anti-Climate Change Oil Lobby?

    Ooh, here’s a fun fact: “Documents uncovered by the Center for Public Integrity show that Halliburton received $1.5 billion in government loans and loan guarantees during the five years Dick Cheney was CEO. That compares with just $100 million during the previous five years.” (The San Francisco Chronicle) It should also be noted that Cheney still received “deferred compensation” from Halliburton while ACTIVELY the Vice-President.

    Here’s what I say:

    I say all former politicians profit from their lobbying. I say people on either side of the debate will profit from whichever course of action we choose regarding climate change.

    I say at the end of the day even if climate change isn’t man made, energy sources that don’t damage our lungs and don’t require boots on the ground in sandy countries are a good thing.

  13. Re: Gore’s green investments.

    So Al Gore has some money. He also has a cause. He then has a choice:

    1. He doesn’t invest in green energy, and he’s called a hypocrite

    2. He invests in green energy, and he’s accused of pumping his stocks up

    Can’t you see the problem, Mr. Platt?

  14. I am also a life long enviro activist and scientist. I enjoyed reading these pieces despite disagreeing with most things – my personal opinion that I wont defend here because I don’t want to waste anyone’s time, although I don’t understand how anyone can consider advancing renewable tech as ever being bad,

    My main complaint on this story would have to be this quote:

    “…Enron donated almost a million dollars to the Nature Conservancy…”

    The Nature Conservancy are not a green organisation. Just because they claim they are, doesn’t make them green. The are and always have been a front group to make big companies like Enron look good, and to provide a “moderate” green front that can be used as a MOR benchmark from which change instigators can be seen as dangerous radicals. A lot like the WWF and Greenpeace of today (greenpeace: maybe not of yesterday).

    keep it up charles – a roomm full of people agreeing with each other is a boring room.

  15. “I believe it will be expensive for those of us whose taxes support the subsidies. It will be profitable for those who receive the subsidies.”

    Carbon taxes will discourage fossil fuel imports.

    Green energy subsidies will (and already does) encourage domestic investment and create local jobs, as well as helping the trade balance.

    Fossil fuels are expenses. Once you’ve used them, there’s nothing left but pollution.

    Wind mills are investments. Once they’re built, they generate energy for (almost) free.

    So, hm, yeah, investing costs money. But your argument is akin to saying that renting is better than paying back a mortgage, because the monthly payments are lower. And that’s nonsense.

  16. “science has spoken…”

    Really? The science I know and respect doesn’t speak like that…even at its most certain, it still acknowledges a great amount of uncertainty. This uncertainty shows up in nearly all of the scientific journal articles I’ve read on climate change. Somehow in the process of translating those tentative conclusions to major media and blogs, though, the issue gets polarized, and we’re either deathly sure of climate change, or only skeptical because we’re ignorant or have some sinister motive.

    I’m skeptical of climate change, having read up on it and debated it with my peers just a few weeks ago. Also skeptical of many neo-darwinian theories on evolution. And skeptical of the Big Bang. And God. Really sure of very little, actually. I’m a “Maybe Logic” sort of guy.

    Yet all too often in this world, when I express this skepticism, I feel like I’ve just started shouting “Jesus Doesn’t Exist” in the middle of a Christian revival; the booing of the crowd is such that a reasonable discussion doesn’t seem possible even if I could find the one or two people willing to try it out. Shouting down the dissent seems more important than actually engaging with the dissenter’s personal views. The argument is considered over before I even get there. They’ve already rejected others who hold similar views–can’t they just consider me pre-rejected?

    The idea that we might all have a wide spectrum of views on the issue, for a wide variety of reasons based on different conflicting standards–that reasonable individuals need to be reasoned with individually–doesn’t seem like it’s on the table, even though that’s generally the case with everything in this world.

    Anyway, that’s just how it seems to me. Thank you, Charles, for putting some room to question climate change on the table here. It takes a lot of chutzpah to walk into someone’s home and challenge some of their most important beliefs. And it takes a good backbone for the homeowners to tolerate it with patience, respect and an open mind. Wish you could’ve found a bit more backbone here; hopefully as things fall out over the next few days, it’ll show up.

  17. According to the chart, the only element with influence on the Media is Al Gore. This is not self-evident.
    I would say that the incomplete “Theory of Climate” bemoaned in Platt’s previous post is a tad more complete than this effort.

  18. Hang on, this is just capitalism in action.

    Dealing with climate change isn’t going to be cheap. Therefore a small number of people are going to make a lot of money out of it. Yay capitalism! }:(

    That’s not a reason not to act though. Deal with climate change and at the same time change our political and economic system. No?

  19. JACKDITCH makes some very good points. Science, at it’s best, is a constant the conflict of data leading to tentative theories, which hold until a better intellectual framework is created. Even if ‘all scientists agree’, a new paradigm of understanding can upset the conventional wisdom overnight.

    By ‘believing’ in climate change, evolution or any other scientific construction, we inhibit our ability to think creatively about new concepts.

    Cory- I believe that all scientists have bias which influence the work that they create. Not that they consciously manipulate data, but they choose which questions to ask, and choose which sources their data come from.


  20. Wind mills are investments. Once they’re built, they generate energy for (almost)free.

    Much as I’d love them to be the perfect solution, wind mills/farms are not without problems. As far as I’m aware, there’s an awful lot of concrete (and therefore CO2) needed to build a wind turbine – the foundations, tower etc. I think their useful life is only 20 years, too.

    Hopefully these problems will be solved.

    Wave farms could be a better option. The UK is looking at a wave farm in the Severn Estaury that could provide 7% of the country’s electricity needs.

  21. I second the issue with your chart. The point of a chart is for clarification. After seeing your chart I am more confused.

  22. it’s a mistake to assume an oil company will always rely on oil. A company is a company, it exists to survive, profit and grow. With or without oil. Or humans. Of course big business that controlled your energy will seek to control your new energy.

  23. Re: Gore green investments: One of these “investments” is to buy carbon offsets from his own company. Which means giving money to himself, is order to encourage others to buy carbon offsets… from him.

    That would be a conflict of interest, yes?

    Let’s be clear- I’m anti- car and anti- oil and so forth, but there’s times when I really wish it was someone else, aside from the Gore’s and the Greenpeace’s who represented environmental issues. But then it’s not like lies, oversimplification and conflict o f interest are unique to them.

  24. Wow, I guess Mark Frauenfelder’s occasional dabbling in the field wasn’t enough, so Boing Boing had to get themselves a full-on global warning “skeptic,” with all the finger-pointing, shoddy sources, and self-congratulation that entails.

    Bra-freaking-vo, guys.

  25. Charles,

    You want a specific problem with your chart? How about this for starters; you note the media’s only source for news being Al Gore and the government.

    Here’s another; special interest groups only get funding from the “general public” and Al Gore. Are you trying to say there aren’t special interest groups getting money from corporations?

  26. I love the fact that Al Gore is bigger than either “Industry” or the “General Public” in the chart. I mean, I knew he was an important guy, but I had no idea he loomed so large in global warming skeptics’ worldview.

  27. What is Christopher Horner’s potential conflicts of interest in creating a “scandal” and then selling books about said “scandal”? Does he have incentive to create controversy where none exists? Does he have incentive to overinflate the issues?

  28. my daughter wants to grow up to be a climate scientist hyping global climate change because she heard thats where the big bucks are. she’s always wanted to be rich.

    i had to tell her no honey, the real money is in being a denialist. since there is only a few of them theres plenty of money to go around and corporations like exxon mobil are totally loaded. plus theres a ready built audience of fools that will buy your books and plenty of other right wing corporatist groups and think tanks that will buy them in bulk and use it as a free teaser when they solicit for donations. You might even be a nytImes bestseller that way.

  29. I know a few other people have said this (most concisely post #13), but what is problem with investing in green technology? I neither know nor care whether Al Gore in particular is a hypocrite, but he’s not a hypocrite for *that* reason, at least. You strongly imply that he’s an environmental advocate because he’s financially invested in green technology, but any even remotely objective person could see that vice versa makes much more sense. Is he supposed to NOT put his money where his mouth is? Is he supposed to bet on failure? Is the very act of engaging in capitalism an ethical taint, or is it so only if you’re also trying to be socially responsible?

  30. Moriarity – Thanks for the logic check! Much needed.

    Charles – I’ve got another fancy graph for you. It’s called “Exxon Secrets”. It’s kind of like the one posted above, except opposite. You can even dig down to the actual data used for each node.

  31. #2 stated:
    “But your chart is ridiculous.”
    to which Charles responded:
    Can you please be more specific?

    Man, it makes you look frickin’ nuts. “Fear meme”? Al Gore? Seriously, this looks like the scribblings of someone with a personality disorder.


  32. Charles, my initial branding of your chart as ridiculous stems from the bright yellow nodes labeled “Fear Meme”. By labeling at as such, and not, say, “Global Warming Theory” or “Scientific Analysis of Climate Change Data”, you sort of showed your hand as to what you think of the science behind it. Perpetuating a “Fear Meme” involves a different motive than educating the masses about genuine concerns raised from scientific data, and it brands Al Gore and anyone who agrees as knowing allies in a grand farce. Which, I guess, is what you seem to be saying.

  33. This graph shows suspicious signs of being made up with little thought.

    It is unlikely that a random graph with 9 vertices will be planar. It is very likely that it will not be possible to draw all the vertices with their corresponding edges without some of the edges having to cross. Or complete non-math speak: Given a set of 9 points on a plane, it is not generally possible to connect that many of the points with curves without some of the curves crossing each other.

    However, if you ask someone to draw a random graph they will often draw a planar graph. In fact, this graph is close to maximally planar (that is that you cannot add any more edges and still have a planar graph). Of the 9 vertices the only two where one could possibly add another edge are for the pairing (industry, al gore) or (industry, government) and you cannot add both.

    This graph looks like something someone came up with doodling when they thought they needed a fancy picture of an ominous network.

  34. Christopher Horner is also a Senior Fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who made those delightlful “Carbon Dioxide: They call it pollution, we call it life” ads a year or two ago and is a major recipient of donations from Exxon-Mobile

    Horner also admits to manipulating data:

    Horner talks about baselines used in climate trends. Why start in 1860? That was the end of the Little Ice Age. Of course the world has warmed since then. That’s cheating with the baseline. At one point Horner refers to the “cooling” since 1998 — a record-breaking year with a major El Niño event in the Pacific. He admits he is being disingenuous.

    “We’re playing the baseline game,” Horner says.

  35. Daz, I’m not sure that’s fair to Horner. Horner seems to be arguing that everyone is choosing baselines to fit their arguments and he’s doing that also.

  36. The level of cynicism implied in this guest post is simply too much to bear. And the chart, as has been noted, is so convoluted it suggests a major stretch, or a significant delusional system. Though I agree that Gore has put his money where his mouth is, I won’t read into that fact the implied conflict of interest and malice aforethought. Just not happening IMHO. So what’s the motivation here? The post begs that question.

  37. “But your chart is ridiculous.”
    Can you please be more specific?

    If I may help answer — the fact that you proudly announce that you pulled the chart out of your ass, well, that’s just a bit ridiculous.

    On the other hand, it had never occurred to me to ask who is funding Gore’s work. While this should in no way stop progress towards halting climate change, that is an important question to ask. Because if we get on the other side of this issue and we suddenly realize that our windmills and hydraulic power plants are controlled by Halliburton or someone like them, I think nobody will be happy.

  38. There seem to be a lot of people who want to change the discussion about whether or not we should take action to reduce man-made “greenhouse gas” emissions, or find other ways to reduce global warming, to a discussion about whether or not Al Gore is a good person.

    I won’t pretend to know their motives, but they are engaging in a classic rhetorical technique that is not based on reason.

  39. Platt is a rope a dope republican. The themes in his posts are of a cantankerous old man unwilling to cope with reality.

    Conflict of interest? Nope, I would say Gore’s interests are in 100% alignment. To suggest that Al Gore has been been concerned about climate change for 30 years so that after a long life of politics he can strike it rich is patently absurd. Ha, and I can’t even stand the guy…

  40. @Charles Platt from post #51 –

    Well heres just one easy example …

    On your link from “Climatic Heresy 2”, comment number 7 had me wondering exactly what Robert Carters qualifications are, so I googled him ..

    Here are the highlights and the links to the information …

    He is a geologist specializing in palaeoclimatology, stratigraphy, marine geology, and environmental science. Carter is a former Director of Australia’s Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program and a Co-Chief Scientist for drilling leg 181

    Impressive! I does make me do a double take when an environmental scientist aligns himself with the oil industry, but lets just say im overly cautious, nothing here im ready to hang my hat on, lets look a bit more.

    Carter is active in the media, volunteering letters and opinion pieces on science topics to a variety of newspapers, magazines and web magazines. Carter is a member of the conservative think tank the Institute of Public Affairs

    Even more interesting, the conservative think tank “institute of public affairs”, have to read up on them as well.

    Heres a quick snippet from sourcewatch about the IPA.

    The IPA key policy positions include advocacy for privatisation, deregulation, reduction in the power of unions and denial of most significant environmental problems, including climate change.

    What else do they have to say about the IPA?

    More recently, the IPA has been the driving force behind the establishment of a number of new non-profit front groups, including the Australian Environment Foundation – which campaigns for weaker environmental laws – Independent Contractors of Australia – which campaigns for an end to workplace safety laws and a general deregulation of the labour market, and the ironically named Owner Drivers Australia, which campaigns against safety and work standard for truck drivers.

    and theres more …

    For all their talk of ‘transparency’ though, the IPA has beem embroiled in controversy over failure to disclose funders of its work. In June 2004 it was revealed that Australia’s largest irrgation company, Murray Irrigation Limited, contributed $40,000 to the IPA. The IPA’s environment unit director Jennifer Marohasy played a critical role in persuading a government committee to overturn recomendations to increase the volume of water released into the Murray River
    However, Marohasy did not disclose the donation to the committee. When asked by the Australian Financial Review about the MIL donation, Marohasy would not confirm or deny whether she knew about the donation while writing her report or giving evidence to the committee. She said she did not take “an interest in who funds IPA”

    So Robert Carter, a supposed environmentalist is part of a group that really doesnt sound concerned about the environment, it actually sounds like he ends up supporting weakened environment protections led by corporate interests solely, be they his connections with the oil industry or not.

    Lets read some more!

    Research and Background
    According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Carter has published over 50 original research in peer-reviewed journal mainly in the area of stratigraphy, in other words the study of rock layers and layering.
    Carter and the “Institute for Public Affairs”
    Carter is on the research committee of an organization called the “Institute for Pulic Affairs” (IPA). The IPA is an Australian-based organization that, according to Sourcewatch, has received funding from the fossil fuel industry. In reference to his involvement with the IPA, Carter stated in a March 15, 2007 Sydney Morning Herald article, that: “I don’t think it is the point whether you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry.”
    Carter “not a credible source” on climate change
    In response to claims made by Carter that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change uncovered no evidence that global warming was caused by human activity, a former CSIRO climate scientist stated that Carter was not a credible source on climate change and that “if he [Carter] has any evidence that [global warming over the past 100 years] is a natural variability he should publish through the peer review process.”
    Carter and Tech Central Station
    Carter has written articles for Tech Central Station. TCS is an organization that has received money from ExxonMobil. Until very recently, TCS was run by Washington lobby/PR firm DCI Group, whcih in turn was at the centre of controversy over a YouTube Al Gore spoof video they produced and posted under the guise of 29-year old amateur filmmaker. ExxonMobil is reported to be a client of the DCI Group.

    Theres more information to be read, this is what I was able to find in about 5 minutes worth of searching …

    You can go after the sources if you like but im sure youll find it all true.

    Robert Carter is oil backed shill whos expertise is mostly in rock layers, hes part of a group whos agenda is to deregulate business, weaken government, destroy unions and hes backed by corporate interests that dont want to be subject to environmental standards.

    With all due respect Charles Platt, your posts get TROUNCED repeat TROUNCED with just a little googling.

    This was in regards to one small posting that u made, I think I made my point, its a shame you didnt do this work in the first place.


    P.S. I hate having to post with any sort of code here, I cant use regular BB code and the HTML doesnt seem to allow me to put quotes in properly or even seperate text without losing the bold function or opening a WYSIWYG editor, blah.

Comments are closed.