Psychiatrists have detected the first case of "climate change delusion"

For example in most studies there's an "interesting" result (e.g. method P works, X causes Y, Z is a real phenomenon) that might come out or a "less interesting" result (method P doesn't work, X has nothing to do with Y, Z doesn't really exist). The interesting result is almost always better for the scientist's career.

Seriously, everyday 95+ temperatures in anyone's lifetime? Ridiculous exaggerations like that are the reason that overdone backlash articles like this exist.