LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Truth about 'Truthteller'

Posted

To the editor:

Some entity using the name “Truthteller” writes an unending stream of lunatic right-wing comments on letters on The Riverdale Press website.

Does he, she or it have a proper name so we can make a credibility judgment?

A recent example of his comments is the mocking response to my suggestion that Trump’s Big Oil environmental policies have had an adverse effect on hurricanes. 

He overlooks the universally accepted fact that a rise in temperature makes a tropical storm more intense.

Maybe he questions that increased carbon fuel consumption causes global warming.

Alan Saks

Alan Saks

Comments

16 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment
TruthTeller

For the record, here is the comment I left for Mr. Saks that he is referring to in his letter. I don't find it mocking, nor right wing in any way. I am a progressive libertarian/conservative and I hate the right wing. But anyway, you will notice some real questions I pose to Mr. Saks, along with admiration for his past letters, many of which I agree with him 100 percent on. And no, I don't believe in anthropomorphic reasons for climate change. As an organic permaculture farmer, I am an extreme steward of the environment, but I don't believe in the mainstream reasons for why the climate is getting hotter. I believe it has to do with normal and natural cyclical changes in the weather. After all, there have been way hotter periods in the past, way before industrialization. Also, any mention of climate change that does not mention Geoengineering is not a valid argument. But anyhow, here is the response that was called "right wing lunacy" and "mocking." You can decide for yourselves.

"Ah, so now hurricanes are Trumps fault. Even if you take this ridiculous thesis to be true, then I want to see every President since the 1860's named here because they're all responsible too. Rockefeller oil interests have controlled government since at least then. I can't see how seven months of an administration is responsible for hurricanes. And also, hurrican'es never happened before?

Coem on Mr. Saks. You're smarter than this. I've read some great letters you have penned for many years now. But I fear you have caught TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome, which causes sufferers to see a Russian behind everything that happens, and also seems to suspend all other forms of reason as well.

Also, this is a position which will backfire. Do you have any idea how hated both your side and the media is in this country? That hatred and distrust only grows when your side makes these ludicrous statements, so Trump 2020 here we come! "

Friday, November 24
TruthTeller

I would also like to point out that I had my farm in Puerto Rico destroyed by Hurricane Maria, so it's not like I don't have a dog in this fight Mr. Saks. I just don't agree with New World Order/Elite banker connected operatives like Bill McKibben and his ilk about the reasons for climate change. They want to institute taxes and control grids on humanity. I want to free humanity from the chains of the elite bankers and their whores in government, science and media. And there is no "universally accepted" cause for anything here. Haven't you heard of Climategate, where hundreds of so-called "climate scientists" were caught red handed faking and manipulating data, as well as colluding with eachother to reach conclusions that were foregone...to them?

Friday, November 24
TruthTeller

And one last thing Mr. Saks, this "right wing lunatic" has done more than virtually anyone in the local neighborhood to solve real world carbon pollution problems, even though I don't believe in human caused climate change. I led a successful campaign to lessen alternate side of the street parking in Riverdale. This policy was spearheaded by an activist campaign I started and manipulated to completion. So not only did something I did have real world positive effects for Riverdalians (and by extension other NYC neighborhoods that followed our lead), but I also halved the amount of unnecessary driving in weekday mornings. I know you didn't know that about me, but I'm just pointing that out to you so it can inform your opinion of me and my motivations.

Friday, November 24
Michael Hinman

I am confused ... if you don't believe in human-caused climate change, then how did your work to alter human behavior (stopping alternative side street parking) help the environment? Aren't you the one saying that this isn't caused by people, yet you are helping it by altering what people are doing?

Just curious ...

Friday, November 24
TruthTeller

Why an editor of a newspaper is so hell bent on arguing with a reader is beyond me, but I'll answer anyway.

First off, nowhere did I claim my actions had any effect on climate change......and although don't believe in anthropomorphic explanations of climate change because the evidence disproves it and the proponents of that theory have for the most part been exposed as corrupt frauds who are working in the interest of the elite bankers (Bill Mckibben anyone?), I do believe that pollution is bad in general.

One can hold those two beliefs simultaneously.

So while I am all for cleaning up my local environment from car exhaust and particulate matter that have clearly been shown to adversely affect human health, I do not believe my actions will do anything to change the climate.

Friday, November 24
TruthTeller

In addition Michael, my work as an organic farmer and 100% organic gardener does a hell of a lot more to clean up this planet and save its soils than the actions of letter writers who have a problem with opinions different than their own. So you might want to try to understand what I am trying to say in my comments rather than pigeonhole me into a box. I don't know how to make it clearer than to say I am anti-war, anti-empire, anti-racist, anti-corporate, pro-life (not in the abortion sense but rather a love for life), pro-freedom, pro-environment. what part of that do you disagree with because you seem to disagree with everything I write. Are you pro-war, pro-racism, pro-corporate, anti-life, anti-freedom and anti-environment? Because if you disagree with me, you must be those things.

Friday, November 24
TruthTeller

I should add as an addenda to my last sentence above that if you are, as I surmise, anti-war, anti-empire, anti-racist, anti-corporate, pro-life , pro-freedom, pro-environment etc, than congratulations, we just found common ground to agree on and we should set aside stupid petty things like what puppet is in the White House aside and work together to find solutions to these issues. I am doing my part by gardening and living a spartan lifestyle.

What are you doing?

Just Curious.........................

Friday, November 24
Michael Hinman

TruthTeller, it's something we like to call "discussion." And I'm simply asking a question. I wasn't aware that it was inappropriate for me to do that.

A reporter's job is to help make sure information lines up correctly. So if something doesn't seem to match up, and becomes an anomaly, then we simply ask questions to help reconnect it again. In this case, you talked about how you didn't believe humans caused global warming, but then boasted about how you worked to reduce the carbon footprint by adjusting traffic on a street. Those two things just don't go together in my mind. It's like an atheist praying for someone to get better.

You stated that by halting the regular moving of the cars, you reduced the carbon footprint. A carbon footprint is specifically tied to greenhouse gases, one of the primary culprits of global warming, according to a vast, vast, vast majority of scientists. There's no other real reason to track carbon footprints except when it comes to the greenhouse effect, which leads to global warming. And while there could be natural influences into the carbon footprint, you were specific to cite a man-made situation in an effort to reduce the carbon footprint.

If you don't believe there is a correlation between reducing the carbon footprint and global warming, why did you then share a story about your efforts to reduce the carbon footprint in the same context as a discussion of global warming?

I think it's great that you do farming (whether organic or otherwise), and that is something that should be commended.

No one is saying that you can't have opinions, or that they can't be different from anyone else's, including what you perceive mine to be. But at the same time, you don't get to speak them in a vacuum. People are indeed allowed to respond to them, and they can talk about what you state in general, or address something specific that you said.

However, if I can give a word of advice: People might take what you say more seriously (and maybe listen closer) if you did not say it behind anonymity. It's up to you if you want to be anonymous or not. But there's a reason why I post with my real name — because I stand behind what I write.

Have a great day, TruthTeller!

Friday, November 24
TruthTeller

Fair enough Michael, and I can see how you'd be confused by my stance on the parking issue. I guess I ultimately made the point because to a person like Mr. Saks who does believe in human caused climate change, seeing a "right wing lunatic" who made cars drive less might help to soften their view on my motivations and beliefs. I pushed for, and made it happen, because I believe that less cars driving the better, but mainly for human health, not for any perceive change I could make globally. No one human can do anything about global issues. We only have control over our own actions. And believe me, if you saw how I lived my life, you'd think I was the biggest left wing hippie on the planet.

Regarding anonymity, hey, this is an internet forum. No one expects people to use their real names, and a certain freedom of expression can be had not using a real name, especially in a small community newspaper. If you want people to use their real names, make it a requirement for signing up and people like me will go away. But don't impugn my motivations or information because I choose to remain anonymous. If anything is contradictory, that's it. You allow anonymity, but then castigate people for taking advantage of that.

Friday, November 24
Michael Hinman

"Castigate"? Really?

I am not sure how me providing some advice for online posting can equate to castigation. I didn't forbid you from doing it, or sanction you in any way. I simply offered advice.

But I will be honest ... I have had a number of people tell me during my tenure here that they don't like to comment here (or sometimes read the stories) because of the anonymous posting. Especially when they see people with real names get targeted (hence, why you saw a tremendous crackdown on such activity in these comments).

Seriously, you've never seen me with a disposition to castigate. If you ever get that, then you'll definitely understand how my suggesting a way to get better traction with your statements and opinions is more the opposite of castigation. :)

Friday, November 24
TruthTeller

Ok, so I take back the word castigate and will take you on your word that you were giving me friendly advice. In either case my friend, do you really think I, or anyone else for that matter, expects internet postings to change anyone else's mind about anything? We do this because it is really our only way to dissent publicly in this society, so it's much more in reality a way to blow off steam. Do you really think if I put my real name to my posts that all of a sudden Jennifer Scarlotte and her compatriots would all of a sudden see my point of view? I doubt it.

Friday, November 24
Michael Hinman

You might be surprised, TruthTeller. I tend to read and consider all comments that I come across. But more so when people actually put their name on it. But that's just my own perspective.

One thing that using your real identity can do — especially when debating someone who also is doing the same — is that you're not afraid of an even playing field.

I have used my real name in online postings all the way back to the late 1990s. Even when I was required to create a "handle" of some sort, I still made it obvious that it was me (usually by signing my name at the bottom of a post). What was very interesting about the debates I would get into online wasn't me convincing someone I was debating directly to change their opinion (or vice versa). But it was the audience — the people who simply read and don't participate. They tended to weigh my thoughts more heavily than the thoughts of the anonymous person I was discussion a topic with. And guess which side would typically be the most influential to those who were just observing?

I never debate topics online with the goal of changing the mind of the person I'm debating with. Instead, I listen, I consider, I accept or I counter. My goal, however, is to maybe change the minds of those who might be watching.

Friday, November 24
This will be removed

We don't want fossil fuels global warming etc. ,

We certainty do not want nuclear power,

We cant use a water wheel by Hell's gate to generate power with the tide changes as it may impact fish from spawning upstream .

We cant use the methane in our sewer system as it would cause a recession having free fuel to power generators for public transportation or heating .

We do want cheap housing so we use plastic that is carcinogenic and not recyclable.

We love mercury bulbs but have no where to use the spend mercury this is highly toxic as no one dares actually recycle them

We do like the idea of public officials wasting billions of gallons of fuel to campaign to save a tree with rock stars using private jets to sing songs about saving the planet

Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation.

Transportation exhaust is responsible for 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions so we should get rid of cows, horses and other pollutants

Friday, November 24
Jennifer Scarlott

@"TruthTeller":

Your beliefs and opinions are nearly uniformly burdened by deeply subjective views and factually incorrect information that reveal, more than anything else, not an interest in truth, but in your own agenda.

The climate "scandal" you refer to in which climate scientists were accused of creating false data was proven to be fake news disseminated by those wishing to continue to sow confusion about climate science in the public mind. Try reading, for example, a 9/18/17 Huffington Post article by Chris D'Angelo titled, "That climate 'scandal' Rep. Lamar Smith promoted was, indeed, fake news."

Any Riverdale Press readers tempted to believe your insistence on the feasibility of geoengineering should do an Internet search for "dangers of geoengineering" -- they'll find countless articles ringing the alarm about the false and dangerous promises of geoengineering by MIT, Scientific American, the United Nations, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, ad nauseam.

Finally, since you are so fond of taking issue with my work and views, at least have the respect to get my name right.

Saturday, November 25
TruthTeller

Wow Jennifer, using the HP as a source for news? Not smart. So many of their journalists are partisan fake news hacks. Climategate was very real and the fact that you cannot accept that shows that your ideological blinders are very dark and very big/

Second, you may want to go back and read my posts about Geoengineering. I have been saying for 20 years now how dangerous it is, and how it is a major contributor to many of the weird weather phenomenon and wildfires plaguing the world. It must be stopped immediately. After all, as an environmentalist, do you like breathing in aluminum, barium and all sorts of other toxic particles? I think you mistakenly think I am an advocate for it, which shows your reading comprehension skills are not the best, which probably explains your trust in the Huffington Post.

Finally, my apologies for getting your name wrong. You're pretty sensitive about that issue it seems, so yes, sorry about that.

Sunday, November 26
TruthTeller

To add onto Jennifers list of sites to check into the dangers of Geoengineering, Geoengineeringwatch.org is the best site.

See Jennifer, the hated Truthteller and you have something in common......that Geoengineering must stop. If only your side and my side could find more of those issues we have common ground on then maybe, just maybe, there would be actual change made in the world. Perhaps that the wars should end? Or how about universal forgiveness of all debt in the world? What about stopping all subsidies for industrial agriculture, or banning products like Roundup? Those seem like issues we could commune on. But as long as you keep on with your hatred of others based on their opinion, you will be getting nowhere. You see, the elite 1 percent want us divided along class, racial and political lines. Stop playing into their game. The true progressive/libertarian right and the left have more in common than you think. I think we both can safely discard the extreme RINO Neocon wing of the right, as well as the Neoliberal corporate democrats of the left as hopelessly lost. But there are so many shades in the middle of political thought that gets lost on the arguments. This forum is a great example of that.

Sunday, November 26