I think there are a couple of different arguments here - and conflating/confusing the issues possibly? (EDIT: The article linked in post #1 wasn't really about global birding, or ecotourism etc)Your argument of righteously showing the way has a major flaw: nobody but birders cares what birders do or don't.
If ecotoursists don't come, many tropical reserves will be lost within years, long before climate change becomes visible.
I written in another thread, that it would be possible to count how many species depend from ecotourism for their existence: all African megafauna for example. This loss will be catastrophic.
I've never been to the tropics, or to a place where my money will have specifically helped sustain/preserve a natural area. A lot of trips by birders won't necessarily be in this category either. It has been said earlier on this thread that it should be down more to government etc but, yes the reality is probably the only way that these places can be saved is through direct market forces, ie ecotourists?
Fair enough having the moral high ground isn't really going to stop climate change. But that shouldn't stop people following their own conscience at times.
(There is also an argument of 'sod it all, it's all going down the pan anyway, enjoy it before it's all lost forever'!)