Flagging helps here because the author (with whom, fwiw, I basically agree - let's have more nuclear power!) cannot be trusted to supply reliable information, ie not to distort data whenever it suits him.

https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/853/exposi...

https://theecologist.org/2018/sep/20/nuclear-power-lobbyist-...

https://news.mongabay.com/2019/08/michael-shellenbergers-slo...

Neither can many journalists, but we don't systematically flag stories found in the NY Times.

The article in question gives many citations, interviews with original sources and is in general an excellent piece of journalism. It's also arguing against a ridiculous, extreme position whose prime proponents have frequently admitted they're lying. Trying to suppress this article because it's written by someone in favour of nuclear power is exactly what makes people suspicious of all environmentalist narratives because how do they know they're getting the full picture?

It's a dupe.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21648582

> Why not discuss a controversial position?

One reason is if the argument is made in bad faith by a paid shill, as is the case here.

There are lots of discussions happening now about nuclear vs. renewables vs. fossil fuels. There's no need to waste anyone's time broadcasting a piece like this that presumed its conclusion when a check was signed.