If person A is advocating policy changes based on an alleged impending crisis, and person B doubts the claims of person A, upon which person should the burden of proof fall? In any sane society, the burden of proof would fall on the person A.
Imagine if the burden of disproof were to fall to person B. Our society would be a mess. If I wanted new windows, I could hurl rocks through them and then blame it on my neighbor. It would be all but impossible for him to prove that he didn't throw the rocks, and I could get my neighbor to pay for my new windows.
It is plainly obvious upon whom the burden of proof should fall, but the global warming alarmists want to shift the burden of disproof to the skeptics. You have seen it recently on this blog, and now the JT is getting in the act. "What counts is that predictions of global warming have not been refuted by strong evidence" says the JT.
True enough, but will shift the burden of proof at our own peril. Or perhaps we could use this new standard for a worthy cause.
Did you know that a giant Easter Bunny will be arriving from Mexico in ten years to eat up all of our crops and our children? We must act now and build a fence.