[jamez1]

It depends what your null hypothesis is. Your contrarian friends only need one piece of evidence to disprove the climate catastrophe narrative.

Whilst you've taken the worst case as your default assumption, which is why their train of thought seems off. You sound like you need a large body of evidence to disprove climate catastrophe.

[mturmon]

About large bodies of evidence that I find convincing, please see the AR5 synthesis report (http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/).

I'm not aware of a similarly convincing counterpart on the side that says nothing new is happening.