She has a point
Ignoring global warming it's self, what she is say is:
1) There is something bad that is going to happen but it hasn't happened yet (e.g. death from lung cancer)
2) You will have to change your behaviour now and you will not like it (e.g. giving up smoking)
3) There are powerful vested interests who don't want you to change and are putting our messages that tell you that you do not want to change (e.g. tobacco companies)
4) It is easier to hear and believe the story that say you don't have to change than it is to believe the story that you do have to change.
Ignoring the rights and wrongs of the argument, it's much easier to convince people they don't need to change their behaviour because nothing bad will happen than it is to convince people that they need to change their behaviour because something bad will happen.
So if you do think something bad will happen you have to work much harder than the camp that thinks nothing bad will happen. If you want to change people's behaviour on mass you have to work at a different level than just rational arguments because it's not going to work.