I'd say it's only controversial inside the U.S.
and ignoring the verifiable facts that soon we will not have any useful computers at all. Without infrastructure, computers will no longer be valuable.
This sort of hyperbolic doomsaying is the reason why there are so many "climate skeptics" and deniers regarding anthropogenic climate change, because people frequently make these sorts of statements and it takes incredibly cursory research to determine that it is altogether a lie. Is "Soon we will not have any useful computers at all" really a verifiable fact? verified by what? time travel? No. It's not. It's counter-productive doomsaying.
It's like the folks talking about a "point of no return" where Earth will become Venus, which is absolute poppycock too. The greenhouse gases we are adding to the atmosphere were previously part of the atmosphere 65 million years ago. The issue is that those sorts of ridiculously over-the-top claims mean that people will look into them, find out they are BS, and then dismiss the entire concept altogether.
The change in climate from our *reintroduction* of CO2 into the atmosphere will *not* make the planet altogether uninhabitable to life or some sort of venusian wasteland; the concerns are far more real than that. As I said, we are *reintroducing* CO2 to the atmosphere; remember that Fossil fuels are largely from plants which got their CO2 from the atmosphere of the time. The problem is effectively that whereas the climate change from those tropical high temperatures with high CO2 to the modern day occurred over perhaps hundreds of millions of years and therefore evolution by natural selection was capable of allowing life to adapt, the much faster rate of change we are seeing through our reintroduction is far too fast for adaptations, which is expected to result in a mass extinction event, which will change ecosystems in completely unpredictable ways- Only a relatively small subset of current life will find itself suitable for the changing environment.
The affected Human factors largely involve arable land distribution and changes to our underlying agricultural infrastructure. Human migration will be economic migration, not one based directly on regional temperatures. For example people might emigrate from Central America not because they find it too hot, but because they cannot find jobs there because the economy which relied on agriculture has collapsed due to the crops they rely on no longer being arable in their region. That emigration will have an impact on the economies of developed countries as well regardless of what impact climate change will have on the climate of those countries. How, or whether, any of this will affect high tech industries remains to be seen.
