Please point to the point where it makes the argument absurd.
You try to use lobbyist to mean that he can't be trusted. That's absurd if you know who he is and how he works and what he works for.
He isn't a lobbyist in any meaningful way any more than you are in this thread or the environmental organizations or the IPCC or the oil companies etc.
If you think your argument can stand on its own you wouldn't need to put that in yet you did and that's absurd and provides no further context and doesn't add to the discussion.
What so absurd in this point???
Again he is no more lobbyist than you or the environmental organisations that's why it's absurd to use it as part of an argument.
You can start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o
It's pretty obvious that him being a registered lobbyist means absolutely nothing in this context. But again that's how this whole thing work. Shaming and fingers in ear.
So again. Show a concrete problem with him being a registered lobbyist otherwise it's just a cheap shot which is why you would have to go back to 2004 when he was against nuclear to find anything related.
You can simply google Michael Shellenberger and you will learn who he is today. You can check out this interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-7DIv3AU1o as that gives you a pretty good idea of his stance.