Nah. Climate change is real, and humans can absolutely affect it.
Not enough good places to live? Make new ones. It takes decades or centuries but it can be done.
They're doing it wrong. I'll point to places adjacent to the sahara building a "green wall" which is turning parts of the sahara back to a savannah and replenishes the water table.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbBdIG--b58
Andrew Millison's youtube channel has several videos on the subject, and related subjects in other parts of the world too.
Pretty much all the good spots for cities have already been claimed, hundreds of years or even millennia ago. These are the spots people live in, and the spots people want to live in (as evidenced by ever increasing cost to live there).
Harbors? No. Trains and airplanes exist.
River ways? Los Angeles and California have demonstrated, with the LA river, that rivers can be constructed. Also, trains and airplanes exist. Wanna complain about no water? Well that's where land revitalization comes in.
Mine-able resources? Perhaps. There are lots (!) of resources in deserts that aren't mined. I also argue that food is basically a mine-able resource. I also argue that many resources can be imported instead. I also argue that plenty of people can work remotely without ever working a field or a mine.
That chart says it’s for households, not individuals so for the time scale shown (70s onwards) all you’re seeing is that 1 earner households became 2 earner households.
The stuff about upper class growing does not follow from that. Poor analysis.
In the locales where one has a decent chance of earning more than $100,000 (like the Bay Area) that income is significantly below poverty level, even as a household of one. That is definitely not "upper class" by any definition.
Put differently: this chart shows the average temperature of the patients in a hospital. You can't just show average income across all of the US without considering cost of living and pretend that this result means something.
The next step up "problem" is that the income curve has flattened greatly in the last 75 years. So there are many more high earners mixed in that they are carrying "regular home" prices up with them.
In 1967 lower/middle/upper class ratio was 36%/54%/10%
In 2019 lower/middle/upper class ratio was 25%/41%/34%
The middle class is shrinking because people are getting richer, not poorer. That's the part you never hear people say. Probably because they don't even know it and just assume everyone is broke.
I can only imagine now, after the pandemic money shower (not stimulus checks), that this effect is even greater. Hell upper class might actually be at parity with middle class now.
[1]https://i.postimg.cc/NjKLYpjF/ulc2on31apqc1.jpg