Right, that's why people use other sources. My point wasn't that he was "right" or "wrong" just that Wiki wasn't the source. In your desperate attempt to attack the messenger you missed the target.
I'll continue to go with Jones, the debate is far from over. Unlike Theories of science, this one has yet to be settled. The attempt to assign it perfection and absoluteness that doesn't exist is extant only in political debate, even the scientists themselves say that this isn't a sure thing. Even, sometimes, the most important scientists in the field. That isn't something that deserves the title of Theory, it is something that is a good hypothesis that needs far more testing before we base draconian government restrictions on it.
Because of that, we need to find other reasons to clean up our act, ones that don't amount to making our lives suck to "save the planet" from man. Clean water is good, clean air is good. We should work towards emission-less energy, not because we're sure we're going to save the planet, but because it will be better for us. We should do this in a way that isn't designed to create false need or to bankrupt us, in ways that doesn't cut off our nose to spite our face like creating lightbulbs that use less energy but poison us at the same time because most people won't know or find out about the ways to "properly dispose" of them.
