Oh fun we are having a semantic debate now. I guess nobody wins.
I think a little dose of media literacy is needed here. Obviously scientists aren't literally "refusing to accept", "rejecting", or "don't believe" this data is accurate. Rather "disbelief" in this sense is a normal phrasing used in media to describe the sense of surprise or shock on the part of experts who didn't expect this to happen. One scientist said it was "unheard of".
Yes the article is replacing that with "disbelief" in the figurative sense, but we all know what that means. It's not clickbait.
They are metaphorically in disbelief, but in actuality they are not in disbelief? Yeah I guess I understand the climate deniers too.
EDIT: Be cause I wrote the above in anger
Scientists have been sounding the alarm for as long as I have lived. They have consistently used the most optimistic scenarios and we have constantly done worse than that. Climate Deniers want to deny because the reality is an inconvenience to their ways of life. The costs of climate denial are diffuse; they can't be directly traced back to me. The benefits are acute and wholly captured by me. Add on to this that contribution toward climate change is disproportionately done by wealthier people and you get the most powerful people, who benefit the most from climate denial, trying to get others to deny with them.
You're making distinctions without differences. This kind of metaphorical speaking is very common in English and is well-understood by people not looking for pedantic argumentation. I will grant that it may be a bit subtle to non-native English speakers, but it is not being used to deceive the reader either in fact or in severity.
