The state of the world should not be left to people's "beliefs."

The other day in Econ class I got in an argument with my student teacher about environmentalism. Mr Martin asks the class to bring in current events every day, and since no one in my class is concerned enough to read the newspaper every once in a while, I brought up the subject of the recent acquisition of the polar bear to the Threatened Species list, but the Bush administration has absolutely no intention to actually do anything to otherwise protect the species; ie, continued oil drilling in Alaska, no reduction in emissions, no additional protections, etc (may I bring up the fact that the US is one of the LAST countries in the developed Western world to not sign the Kyoto Act?).

Mr Martin told me that global warming is exaggerated and not particularly a threat to us nor other species, and that he saw on NBC news that the polar ice caps aren't melting (multiple studies have shown that the Arctic will be ice-free during summers relatively soon--see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm ). He also said that a) liberal media is just as biased and agenda-driven as conservative media and that humans have a right and responsibility to care for themselves before other species, especially since other species do not care for us. I told him that it is homo sapiens' gift of "rationale" that is killing the earth, and that instead of harming, we can and should use this "rationale" to help and cure it, and that we cannot exist as a species if we didn't have the earth, therefore we need to protect it. He did not seem to understand this point, and tried to tell me that the earth couldn't exist without humans, which is absurd because homo sapiens are a relatively new species compared to the rest that currently exist. He mentioned human's responsibilities to ourselves before other species, and I got so angry that I said, "well if the Bible says it, it must be true." I was still angry after this statement but also felt really bad, since it was un-called for.

After I said that, the entire class basically went berserk and started trying to refute everything I had just said.

I don't understand why people have such an aversion to trying to protect the environment. If hundreds if not thousands of scientists are wrong and the Earth is NOT in danger, what harm have we committed in trying to protect it? Only further reassurance that our children and grandchildren can live in a stable, healthy society and Earth; cleaner skies, clearer rivers, healthier forests and other ecosystems, more Arctic ice, and stopping the spread of deserts throughout the world.

I just don't GET it.