You raise an interesting issue with burdens of proof. I believe that the party seeking to plunge society and industry into massive shifts bears the burden of proof.
Maybe I get a bit caustic and sarcastic in my remarks. However, I consider it hubristic to think that humans can change the weather, by accident or deliberately. Yes, meteorological events have a greater impact with greater human population densities. If we have a new Ice Age, for example, moving New York City or Toronto will be a lot more difficult than moving nomadic hunters a few hundred or thousand miles. I personally think we should take such measures as discouraging massive development right at the waters edge. Even centuries gone by storms with the intensity of the St. Croix hurricane that forced Alexander Hamilton to move to New York City or merged the Hudson with the East River a pretty good ways into New York City have disproportionate impact right at the coastline. That I will concede.
As to the natural world, I favor such steps to restore nature's balance as reintroducing wolves to largely uninhabited areas such as Yellowstone, and even, on the East Coast, the Adirondack, Green and White Mountains. Again, a "pet" belief I have is that coyotes, probably interbred with wolves and domestic dogs, are doing that for us.
Don't worry, I am not some unreconstructed Right Winger, I just believe in moving cautiously and constructively.