You might be frustrated and that's fine, personally I don't know what's missing either but you simply saying "YPU need to figure it out" isn't helpful at all.

Well, here's the language in the license that apparently is too hard for you to find:

4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License.

I can't read it for you, but I can summarize it for you. You are required to make sure that someone who uses the product (i.e., Clickhouse's marketing stunt thingy) becomes aware of the license and origin of the underlying data. And not by digging into some GitHub repo, but right there, on the page.

Their banner on the bottom links to adsb.lol and adsbexchange.com, is your specific concern that they don’t have the odbl license called out? I personally didn’t have much trouble figuring out where the data for this project came from based on their banner alone, and thought it was honorable of them to publish their process for obtaining the data.

I have no horse in this race, but am really confused by this aggressive reaction to what I perceive to be a good-faith use of this data. Is this the prelude to some scheme by which you plan to extract money from ClickHouse? The grievance in these replies is genuinely unclear to me.

I don't think anyone is questioning the correctness of what you are saying, just the aggressive tone and assumption of malice over mistake. Maybe take this as an opportunity to educate licensees rather than ridicule them.