Lobbying Organisation in Wooly Press Release Shocker
"Organisation release non-scientific press-release" is not news, sorry. I assume you apply this rigorous scrutiny to all organisations, not just Greenpeace.
I don't follow Greenpeace, because I prefer the sober application of the scientific method to sensationalised exaggeration, which they are frequently guilty of. Funny enough, my respect for reason also means I can't take anything the Reg publishes about the environment seriously either. You lads really love your fringe science in that context, and it's become a standing joke.
So Greenpeace take real studies and present "worst-case scenario" as reality, because they want to alarm and conscript everyone in the mission to bring about their version of saving the world. Ok.
The Reg unquestionably reproduce the claims of Professor McNutjob when he/she is flying in the face of reason, be it out of genuine convictions or private funding, because, why? Page-views? Wouldn't get the right audience, techies like proper science. Trolling for links from elsewhere maybe? That said, it seems to me that after creationists, people who don't want to believe that humans could be making their environment less habitable for themselves are the ones who most ardently seek support for their standpoint, no matter how spurious that support may be. So maybe it's google gold.
As for the bootnote about Greenpeace = hippies, it's a bit confusing. If we're not taking Greenpeace seriously when they say anything, why do we take it seriously (to the point of eschewing any perception of irony) when their leader says they're all hippies? It all smacks of confirmation bias.