most of those things are actually not verifiable measurable facts within any useful definition
Aside from maybe "whether crime is up or down" (because of under-reporting), everything else can be objectively measured. The measurements might not fit with everyone's specific circumstance (eg. earth is warming as a whole but it's unseasonably cold where you live), but that's not a reason to throw up our hands and say "those things are actually not verifiable measurable facts within any useful definition".
The Earth is warming, but how much of it is caused by humans is under debate. The Earth is still coming out of an ice age, so it would be warming even without humans.
Also, the more important question is: how much will it accelerate based on our emissions? If there are no positive feedback loops, it would only warm up 1C maximum, no matter how much more CO2 we will emit. But because of the positive feedback loops (warmer earth -> more water evaporating -> more warming), this warming can trigger a 4-5C further warming. The feedback loops are just theoretical(you can't measure them empirically) and the quality of the estimations is based on our understanding and modelling of the climate.
We've had in the last 100 years a temperature swing that usually takes a thousand years or more. We've already seen greater than +1C of temperature increase compared to before widespread use of fossil fuels.
Is that caused by humans? Sure that's up for debate, in the same way whether tobacco causes cancer is. People are willing to be wrong when being wrong gives them money/status/utility.
A cute xkcd is not a time machine. You rely here on indirect measurements of tree ring measurements or ocean sediments. You can't verify if there were any other factors at play over the millennia, and I seriously doubt that these methods can even be theoretically +/- 0.5 degree C accurate. You may believe that, but you can't verify unless you travel into the past. Besides, 1000 years are NOTHING on the scale we are looking at. If you live anywhere north of the 40th degree, the place you now sit was probably covered by an ice sheet without a living thing in sight, only 10000 years ago. And a 100000 years ago. There is no way that you can divide that timescale into thousands and measure every one of them with a high enough precision to compare it with the present. The bold claims of climate science have lost any scientific humility.
Do you believe in the method of radiocarbon dating? What about dinosaurs?
GHG emissions are still increasing. If we assume that temperature increase is only linear in the amount of atmospheric GHGs, that means temperature will continue to increase, not remain flat.
But yes, the temperature will increase slightly because of CO2 emissions. That triggers more warming due to feedback effects though, and those are hard to quantify, and more scary.
And of course you have to incorporate of the Earth's interior which is cooling. Are you sure that "fact" doesn't silently ignore almost all of the Earth?
The level of crime is pretty hard to measure. You can measure reported crime, but crimes are reported at different rates in response to complicated incentives.
How much the earth is warming depends on what you measure. Do you measure atmospheric temperature? Ocean temperature? And of course how much the world will warm is dependent on complicated models with tons of inputs.
How many people live in poverty depends on what your threshold for poverty is. There's a "Federal Poverty Level", but cost of living varies by significant amounts across the country.
The rate of inflation is highly dependent on the basket of goods measured and how improvements in goods are measured and so on. There are easily a dozen different measures of "inflation" and they're all reasonable and carefully considered, but none of them is the ground truth.
It is of course relatively easy to measure Social Security inflows and outflows, but usually when we talk about the "cost" of programs like this, we mean something like the net cost, which incorporates lots of societal effects. Also the interpretation of the accounting concept of the Social Security Trust Fund, despite being a fairly simple concept, has significant camps with diametrically opposed views.