If you want to criticize this article that's fine, but you are blaming the IPCC authors for this Guardian reporter's phrasing. If you read the report you'll find it was written in a scientific and objective manner, and as emotionless as possible while using human language. You will probably find it boring to read even the extremely shortened "Summary for Policymakers".
The associated press release uses stronger language, but it still pretty objective if you accept the emotional axiom that "avoiding death and destruction is good".
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6syr/pdf/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf
The associated press release uses stronger language, but it still pretty objective if you accept the emotional axiom that "avoiding death and destruction is good".
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/press/IPCC_AR6_...