I don't think so - to me, the tone seems informative: "hey, did you know that data centers might not need all that cooling? here's an example."
Plus, humans can work for about 80-90 minutes at close to 100 F (albeit not comfortably)[1], so we're not really talking about conditions that would kill people. One can extrapolate, of course, but it's quite possible that the servers would break down before the humans do.
We also seem to get along fine in space, under water, in low oxygen environments, in irradiated environments, in freezing environments...
The point of this is: who cares if the data center is warm/hot? It's as hot as that inside a mascot suit at a theme park, so they build cooling mechanisms into them. Tools exist for a reason, and it is somewhat ironic that we prematurely assume that our creations require the same environment for "comfortable" survival that we do. The animistic tendencies we have may not just be cultural.
It's not like we get along fine in space et al because we put up with discomfort. Have you actually considered your examples? Space is survivable in part because the suit keeps you warm. Under water is much the same way; stay in the water long enough and you need a drysuit or wetsuit to stay alive. Freezing environments? You wear seal furs.
The point is, talking about how we can survive in freezing environments does NOT demonstrate that climate control (or rather, local microclimate control around your body) is just creature comfort.
I guess I didn't get to my point clearly. What I'm saying was "Who cares what the temperature in the data center is? We'll just put some guy in a cold suit if it is more efficient." Humans usually adapt when it is in their favor to.
Plus, humans can work for about 80-90 minutes at close to 100 F (albeit not comfortably)[1], so we're not really talking about conditions that would kill people. One can extrapolate, of course, but it's quite possible that the servers would break down before the humans do.
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9183079