> We see it in the data

Does that "we" actually include "you"? And if so, how much of that data have you looked at personally, and now closely? I ask because (as I have already referenced elsewhere in this thread) I went to the trouble of doing that some years ago - downloaded thousands of data files making up a particular temperature data set, consisting of hundreds of thousands of data entries. This after having heard some particularly inane and quite clearly wrong statements made about my local climate by the folks at NOAA or wherever. And you know what I found? The "raw" data there showed a definite but modest increase in temperatures in my area over the past 130 years or so. But the "adjusted" data (which was being used as the basis for making those statements) had been so badly mangled as to become completely unreliable, yet this was done in such a way as to make it show a rather dramatic increase in temperatures. It ultimately turned out that the whole data set was mangled, too (I spot checked several other locations), and that I wasn't the only person who had gone to such troubles and found much the same issues.

Of course, that was just one data set and that's been almost ten years ago now. But for easily the past 15 years or so, and continuing up to this day, folks outside of the climate research field who have gone to similar troubles to do basic analysis on various climate-related data sets have often come to similar conclusions - everything from "This [apparently very real] data is just too dirty and unreliable to be of much practical use, even after you try to clean it up" to "OMG, it looks like they're just wholesale making stuff up here!" And so on.

BTW, whenever someone mentions "the data" I always ask this question, and I almost never get an actual answer back: Is the data that you're referring to raw data, or adjusted data, or proxy data, or modeled data, or infilled data, or what? Apparently most people just assume that the data being referred to is real, live, actual data, but whenever I've followed up on the matter myself this almost always turns out not to be the case.

> Please tell us if there is something big we miss.

As I believe I have already said elsewhere, I don't think that it's so much that things get missed as it is that they seem to get willfully ignored, or maybe are just under-appreciated in their potential effects. But other folks outside of the climate research field who have noted various troubling things here might disagree with my assessment of the situation.

> Everyone could use some good news by now because the current state is pretty depressing.

Again, as I have already noted, folks who come along and say "Good news everyone! The situation may not be as dark as it first appeared." often just get beaten down mercilessly. And in the press, for whatever reasons, if a "good news" type article appears it tends to fade out rarely quickly, while the "even more bad news" type articles may get hyped to no end. And even with the good news articles, often the reporter seems to go out of their way trying to track down so-called climate experts who will say "True, perhaps - but this actually changes nothing!", and who may then try to impune the motives of the person making the good news statement - "Probably a fossil-fuel funded climate denier!", or similar.

If you want to take a step back and get a breath of fresh air, consider the fact that throughout human history various episodes of doomsday-cult type thinking have come and gone repeatedly, usually with minimal aftereffects. This is very true for recent predictions made by scientists and such, too. For example, recently there was some discussion about how many of at least the most dire predictions being made around the time of the first Earth Day never came to pass. There may be several valid reasons for this, but the simple fact of the matter is that most of those predictions had no real basis in reality to begin with. I expect that at least the most dire predictions currently being made about climate change will turn out much the same way.