Indeed. More extreme weather is definitely observable, but we should still avoid sensationalizing things.
10 or so years ago, when I was in middle school, I got to see nearly three hurricane eyes (two, at the end of the day). Jeanne and Frances, followed by Wilma a year later.
It was that 2004-2006 part of time where we were literally seeing dozens of storms making landfall across the US. A decade has past since that anomaly, where things went back to normal. People have forgotten two things: 1) the danger of hurricanes and 2) who is prepared.
From a Floridian perspective, I'm not worried about my family and friends back home. That state has been built and rebuilt and rebuilt and rebuilt again and again and again to be stronger and better prepared for hurricanes. The people who will end up dead in Florida during the hurricane likely did something foolish (most of the people who die get struck by a tree in Florida, or refuse to leave their boat homes or something).
However, places like Houston were truly fucked. That city wasn't built for that, and was absolutely flood prone. It's something like in Houston where the city wasn't ready, and the people likely forgot just how dangerous storms can be.
Anyways, back to global warming and trying to convince someone of the science. Hurricanes aren't the way to do that. Trying to scare someone isn't the way to do it, either. Especially someone who doesn't believe you already. There's irrefutable evidence that can be presented with data - of course that's not something that's always in non scientific speak, so not everyone will get it.
But, at the end of the day, I think regardless of what you choose to "believe," there's plenty of beautiful arguments towards a capitalist venture of renewables *anyways*. Queue Elon Musk and SolarCity. When in doubt, target someone's logic by going the positive route. I don't think climate change has time for politic-like arguments.