I think I need to be more careful with my wording..

Just came across a 'debate' today centring around Greenpeace and a 'claim' they made on their website which has been picked up on a number of blogs. What is interesting about it though, is that it is only about issues of clarity in an online article. Basically, errors were made on both sides. Here's the direct quote that caused the issues and link from an article about 'Arctic ice' from the Greenpeace website:

"As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030." http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/urgent-action-needed-as-arctic/

This was jumped on by climate change skeptics, especially after a debate started within the scientific community about whether pressure groups such as Greenpeace should 'emotionalize' the science in order to win the public over. Skeptics argued that an ice-free Arctic would be impossible as ice on land, such as the Greenland ice-sheet, has been around for 'hundreds of thousands of years' (the quotation marks are important in order to constrain