What the Higgs Boson tells us about climate change science

Last updated on 5 July 2012, 3:27 pm

Buried under the ground, somewhere in Switzerland, two teams of scientists at the famous CERN lab have been taking turns to smash particles together in search for proof of a concept widely referred to as “cosmic soup”.

large hadron collider source flickr image editor 400px

A cross section of the (very) Large Hadron Collider. (Source: Flickr/ImageEditor)

Part way through this process they thought they’d proved that sub atomic neutrinos could move faster than the speed of light.

A few months later they confessed they’d just made a simple error, a mistake in a calculation or a fault with a GPS receiver were suggested. They duly corrected it and went about their business.

Today, that culminated with the announcement that they had almost certainly discovered the much sought after Higgs Boson, an until now theoretical particle that gives matter its mass.

No one is challenging their work, raking over the neutrino incident or questioning their (epic) funding.

Think back now to Climate Gate in 2009.

The theft of emails from the University of East Anglia failed to produce any real scandal or unearth any errors (according to an independent inquiry, not me). At worst, one of the scientists was found to be taking a short cut with his maths. This was investigated and there was shown to be no wrong doing or misrepresentation with published results.

Fast forward three years and faith in climate science has only just reached pre-Climate Gate levels.

Meanwhile, despite increasing evidence linking the frequency of extreme weather events to climate change, the constant complaining of the “funny weather” and myriad of statistically solid evidence backed, peer-reviewed scientific research, climate change is something 43% of Brits are unwilling to commit to.

Yet when a team of theoretical physicists produce findings so hugely intangible to the general public and with far less obvious and instant repercussions for our way of life, there is not a single cynic or voice of dissent to be found.

There are still 3% of scientists out there challenging the conventional climate change theories. Their doubts are healthy and also evidence based. Their contribution forces rigour, accuracy and honesty from the other 97%.

Politics

Particle physics (as far as I’m aware) is a fairly non-politicised topic. Perhaps it will be once there are bankable applications and money to be made.

For the moment, people are happy to go with what the science tells them.

Climate change on the other hand, and related policies affect people directly. It often means additional effort around the household, perceived guilt-trips from those taking action and in some countries, higher taxes.

In this instance, politics takes over and the science is moot. The trusted, omnipotent physicists at CERN are viewed entirely differently to climate scientists in this scenario, who are written off as corrupt, self-serving cogs in a clockwork conspiracy.

Scientists at CERN stopped (just) short of claiming to have discovered the Higgs Boson, but they have proved beyond doubt, that those questioning climate scientists do so not because they think they’ve done their sums wrong, but because of that other variable that scientists long to avoid – politics.

Gram Davies

I think most of the public find CERN incomprehensible and irrelevant. If they did not, and took avid interest, perhaps they would also find climate science fascinating too, instead of the mysterious but invasive way they see it now.
Robert Pujol

When we have a result of an experiment only you have a data, the meaning depends on the scientific analyzes the data. The scientific is a person, and he/she has feelings, concerns and hopes that the interpretation of the transmitted data. Emphasizes some data and neglects others at their discretion. Finish she/he conform the final result.
If we add to the competitiveness, sometimes the scientific publishing little correct results, which usually tarnish a great achievement correct.
After critics and usually scavengers take the opportunity to shred theories for errors in small ways
Drew Barr

Great article. Thanks Heaps!
Molly Millions

I would agree with the overarching idea of this article, but come on – OPERA and the two LHC collaborations are two completely autonomous entities doing very different research, so flawed faster-than-light neutrino claims and discovery of a Higgs-like particle are in no way steps of the same process (as the article would have you believe)
Mira Caldararu

The new “types” of scientists changed their sciences into arts. The nuclear science, and nowadays the lab in CERN is something very impressive, and all the research money go there. Climate change is not so impressive, it does not matter if it changes our lives and we could do something to improve it. In a word: Climate change is not an art!
Lord Beaverbrook

There is a huge difference in the two fields of particle physics and climate change as your article points out. When science is done correctly then theories are proposed and experimentation confirms or repudiates the theory. Done correctly without external intervention the piers within the field confirm or deny the results and we, the general public, accept the science. If external influence contributes to the process, for example in a political/theological manner as in the IPCC, then we,the general public, will tend to question the outcome, because we have an instinctive sense of malpractice, it’s a basic hereditary survival instinct, it’s who we are.
TomO

There are many experimental teams working at CERN and they regularly produce reports – like say, the CLOUD team which don’t catch in the media – for *political* reasons – and CERN are very careful indeed and diligent in confirming results – otherwise you wouldn’t know about the GPS timing error. IIRC the neutrino team weren’t actually at CERN but halfway down Italy…

If you care to watch the presentation by the director of CERN about the discovered particle he is extremely guarded about the consequences of the discovery.

Would that this were the case in climate science where confidence levels for discovery of effects seem to be more about decibels than 5-sigma statistical testing.