I'm all for the nuclear option - all pollution in one relatively known and controlled spot, rather than in the atmosphere with global impact.
I do not, for one second believe that the theory behind global warming is under any threat whatsoever. Errors of judgement and mistakes aside, the case is compelling. A scientific model, honed after years of further research, and back up by observation in the real world.
When you can predict what ought to happen based on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, can prove the ppm count of carbon dioxide actually present, and then make measurements that fit the model, it takes a rather drastic leap to ignore it.
Errors in time/scale based on a science dependant on so many variables should not come as a surprise, but that is quite different to doubting whether it's happening at all.