Perhaps, I'm unenlightened; but, I don't see how that conclusion follows. I would think the point made in this thread is that nuclear is the only available choice at our disposal at this time to actually combat AGW.
First of all, I dispute the notion that nuclear is the only available choice at our disposal to actually combat AGW (or more correctly, anthropomorphic climate change).
There is this fallacy out there that somehow energy sources can only come from one source. As if somehow, encouraging the use of wind and solar power or investing in improvements in these renewable energies must necessarily come at the expense of nuclear power.
As I see it, to effectively combat climate change would involve both research in and active investment and deployment of multiple different cleaner energy sources (and yes, including nuclear) to reduce and ultimately fully replace fossil fuels. In addition, we haven't really discussed in this thread the need for R & D in battery technologies (to store power, among others), or about energy conservation, all of which are also key components in the fight against climate change.