Is the catastrophic language on biodiversity adapted to scientific language? I'm not sure of it. Fear sells well.
a language is never scientific, even with terms of its own order. Science, by definition, is only an attempt, more or less credible, to explain phenomena later. If there is global warming, for example, each "specialist" tries to provide his analysis, often in contradiction with other specialists, which does not advance us either. There remain the facts which actually show that this warming is indeed present whatever the cause. Is it catastrophism to consider the most serious form estimated or to have an optimistic speech (held for decades) because, naturally, we prefer the good news rather than the bad. Now that fear sells well, it is not sure that it sells better than a reassuring speech, while everything collapses around you.
You probably know the story of the guy who falls from the 42 floor of a skyscraper and every floor past says: "So far everything is fine!" but all we know
in advance that what matters is after the passage of the 1st floor.
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré