Jim D:
“You have agreed however that there is no objective definition of catastrophic, which I interpret as therefore being a personal judgment of a situation.”
Wrongly. All the listed authorities are deploying this term because they believe that science supports a high certainty of imminent (decades) global catastrophe, which perceived judgement they pass to their publics. They are not attempting to interpret the science themselves and they are not lying.
“…people, leaders or not, should not be prevented from saying that as part of their rhetoric that shows how much they care about these things.”
Mainstream science does not support what they are saying; it is noble cause corruption to give their catastrophe narrative a free pass because you think that for now at least this is useful for the policies you support.
“You won’t see words like catastrophic in science…”
Absolutely! Hence it is wrong for all those authorities to present a high certainty of imminent (decades) global catastrophe as being a judgement of science.
“If you find someone who actually said “imminent catastrophe” rather than the need for immediate action…”
Refresh your memory on the many catastrophe narrative quotes from many authority sources. Many indeed cite a call for action too, but any such call based on the motivator of imminent global catastrophe is inappropriate, though this is often given as the overwhelming reason to act.
“The use of “imminent catastrophe” would defeat the policy point because it means we can’t do anything to stop it, so it would not be a wise way to promote mitigation policies.”
Indeed it’s not wise, but the narrative is emergent, and false, so wisdom is not in the frame here. Communicators and others have noticed the hopelessness it sometimes invokes, which is on the increase. The way to prevent this outcome is for the mainstream science community to push back on the false narrative.
