The fallacy in your argument is you impose too much of a political dimension on climate scientists. Most climate scientists are so absorbed by their work, they take little interest in the politics. The names you mention are atypical. Al Gore is a politician and prof. Flannery is mainly an administrator these days.
Even so, both these chaps have shown some support for nuclear in the past. My view is nuclear does have a place in the mix but the combination of solar, wind and emerging battery technologies will make all centralised generators less significant.
