On 1, surely that's not a massively defensible position! Germany lost to Mexico (!) in direct contradiction, France were awful against Australia and pretty jammy to win the game, and Peru absolutely battered Denmark and missed a pen haha, Japan isn't even in Europe for your theory and they played 10 for 88 minutes haha, without Colombia's best player (James). Surely there's more to it than climate!
On 2, that's just revisionism as you could make the same comments about pretty much every world cup, if X hadn't thumped Y! Also only Germany knocked out a South American team at that tournament... there were only four games, Germany knocking out Brazil and Argentina, Argentina winning on pens (!) against Holland and Argentina beating Belgium, which was with the bookies anyway. Not exactly conclusive! If you throw in Holland beating two central American teams in knockouts too...
I get it's a reasonable theory but it's not clear in recent tournaments and extremely simplistic. Was a reason Brazil were bookies favourites before the tournament even in the face of it...