Actually yes way. Most AGW science deniers seem to assume that thoses who accept the science must be green, tree hugging lefties, rather than just someone who accepts that the scientific method is the best process we have for understanding the world, and it's conclusion the best information we have to base policy and decisions on.
So I do support the nuclear power option. It is s proven low carbon option we have to supply energy demand when all thing are considered. BTW nuclear is one of the safest forms of power. There and hundreds killed in the coal and gas industries around the world. How many people have been killed in nuclear accidents? Not sure of the total figure but most people assume Chernobyl killed hundreds or even thousands, but it was less than 60 and most of those were the ill prepared emergency services.
However Nuclear is not the silver bullet to offset carbon emissions. It is fairly expensive. Processing and mining uranium is very costly and environmentally damaging. There certainly isn't enough capacity or perhaps even uranium to supply the worlds energy needs. Plus, currently there is little in the way of long term waste containment.
Add all this up with the simple fact that there are several countries that have growing energy needs but seem so politically unstable that even allowing them access to nuclear material might end up being a very bad thing, and nuclear can only ever be a limited option for any low carbon future.
So to put things simply, I have no problems with nuclear energy supplying power but it's ability to do so in the near future is limited.