Not to be that guy, but Antarctica is just coming out of winter. The coming equinox next week will be the first day of Spring there. The article says Antarctica is registering unusually low temperatures and the Arctic just had the coldest summer on record.

Remember guys, the Arctic is in the north like you so it has the same seasons as you. The Antarctic is in the south so it has the opposite seasons.

All this still provides great evidence against the climate catastrophe hoax for those people who believe anyone has ever gone to Antarctica.

That's an interesting way to view it. I generally just thought of all of this as people falling into the "everything is a conspiracy" mindset, with the added complication that the governments of the world definitely have an interest in discrediting the "truth seeking" people. So basically there are absurd conspiracies that get promoted and then people who tend to view everything as a conspiracy believe them. The mother of all of these is flat earth, which seems to trace back over a century with Samuel Rowbotham.

But yeah, there is probably a human aspect to this too that a conspiracy is a convenient way to dismiss something scary.

There was a video circulating on the internet a while ago of some guy who was supposedly a scientist on the Manhattan project saying that nuclear radiation is less harmful than the authorities let on. I am not sure if this is true or not. I guess it would be interesting if it is, but I sort of don't care, because radiation does cause cancer and whatever. It may just be that it occurs at lower rates than we are told.

So I distinguish between that sort of conspiracy, that nukes are actually less harmful in a long term fashion (fallout, etc.) than we are told, with the ones that say they either don't exist at all or work vastly differently (i.e. the explosions are smaller). The "nukes aren't real" ones generally come from the same places that have claimed to have "falsified the radius" (of the earth). They have not, so I won't be taking their advice about the safety of nuclear radiation.

TIL nuclear bombs were announced in 1986.

These conspiracies are never consistent. They aren't even supported by anything. The link is a BBC documentary about Oppenheimer's later life promoting nuclear nonproliferation (unsuccessfully). How this is evidence that nukes are fake is not specified.

To be honest, it is theoretically possible that the power plants are real while the bomsbs are fake. But it seems kind of silly if this were the case, because then we are saying NPPs exist but no one ever used the technology to build a bomb. On the other hand, if NPPs are fake too, then that is one elaborate conspiracy. NPPs are not everywhere, but they are a lot more places and involve a lot more people than the bombs. At least people can say "well how many people have actually seen a nuclear bomb?" and be sort of right.

There is a somewhat more believable conspiracy that nuclear radiation is less harmful than promoted by the official sources of info. I have no real opinion on that because I have no first hand knowledge.

There is no way nuclear science is fake and I won't even hear it. Only FE tier people believe that sort of thing. So, given that, the energy numbers can be assumed correct. The only real question is whether we can harness it for various devices.

a racist white supremacist who according to his secretary wanted to be 'the Hitler of the United States'

Well who can argue with that information? No seriously, how is that even something that can be falsified? It is a subjective statement followed by an unprovable claim of hearsay, assuming the secretary even said that at all.

But, um, do we usually pay attention to mainstream articles that use the "trigger words" that Paplov dog lefties respond to, like "racist white supremacist"?

There is something a bit bigger here too. There are two kinds of "Nazi conspiracy theories." One is that "the Nazis were controlled opposition, a psyop to lead the world into the war and eventually the New World Order." The other is that "the 'Nazis' were right" ('Nazi' is a bit of a jewish slur). The second one is correct. The first one is itself a psyop.

I am very suspicious of anything alluding to some wider conspiracy of the Third Reich Germans being double agents, especially if it comes from something like Haaretz. And in this case, they are not even saying that. The guy is American. He was not "a racist white supremacist" he just had the normal opinions of that time (i.e. logical opinions).