The bit at the bottom I show the fallacy of the appeal to consensus. Most of the consensus appealers also don't like nuclear power. But if they like consensus so much, they must like nuclear power because the same consensus likes it. The four horsemen of the apocalypse, Sir David King, Professor James Lovelock (who's written some lovely stuff BTW), Sir Crispin Tickell and Lord May all say nuclear power is what we need. Some have even made the classic shill allegation to justify their AAGW alarmism.
I also think I've sorted out the problem of getting into the AAGW issue. I wanted a statement of my position that I'm not advocating nuclear power based on fashionable doomsaying. The risk of course is that while there are some who might be persuadable to nuclear power, they are firmly in the pro AAGW camp and hence I could alienate them. However, I think by stressing that I'm not in the business of advocacy on that particular issue merely stating my position, I show that I can respect those who are pro-AAGW and it won't harm my case.
Big question: Is that trying to avoid debate or engaging in the fallacy of trying to have my cake and eat it to?
The important thing is that there are those who are anti-AAGW, who don't like nuclear power and see AAGW as an alarmist tool to let nuclear power back in. I don't want to be damaged by that perception.