Reply #19: The "indignation" is because you make that statement based on a clearly false assumtion

[kristopher]

You are justifying your disregard for the potential consequences of nuclear power by forcing what is an obvious false dichotomy on the situation.

If you are motivated by AGW as you claim, then it is implicit that you possess empathy.
If you possess empathy then the lives of those you condemn would have value to you.
Yet you persist in presenting the options as:
Business as usual and the consequences of AGW or
Nuclear power and the consequences of nuclear proliferation, nuclear waste, and nuclear accident.

You reject with no justification the proven third alternative of non-nuclear, non-carbon energy.

If there were no alternative to nuclear, I too would choose it over fossil fuels. But since there IS an alternative (AND YOU KNOW IT), it isn't credible that a person choosing nuclear actually places their concern for the environment and their fellow humans as a very high priority.

Your choices and claims would fit the values of someone who is has little empathy but a strong desire to ensure energy security, which is the normal profile of those who support not only nuclear energy, but also coal and petroleum.

In which case your appeal to AGW would be little more than greenwashing.