If you smear some peppermint below your nose and bring yourself to read the above mentioned sources, to sort out the gut feelings of the "internet experts" -a title you earn by claiming you understand a topic and show you are willing to educate others in social media-, you will find out that there's real news you've probably overlooked: it seems like CERN asked for 20 billion euros (but some say 40, as the thing will then need to be operated after it's built) to build yet another particle collider.
That's downright outrageous, ain't it? Aren't these snotty scientists satisfied with having wasted 7 billion euros on the giant large hadron collider, which they sold us as the machine which would find new physics but didn't? And now, in a time of shortage of funds and in a virus-stricken world, with climate changes looming upon us and billions of individual below poverty level, how dare they go after our pockets?
Yes, it looks downright outrageous, except that it isn't, as CERN is not asking for money, sorry. What passed undetected in those internet conversations and hurriedly drafted sci-pop poop-eds is that there is as much difference between studying hard and deep how best to progress science and asking funding agencies for a lump sum, as there is between studying human reproduction and having anal intercourse. For you can do the latter without the former, or do the former without the latter; the two things are not causally connected. The fallacy is the extrapolation that, since a future collider is strategic and advisable for the progress of fundamental science, the EUSUPP publication tantamounts to having asked for a blank check.
I know these words will be lost like tears in rain, but I sometimes feel the need to state the obvious. For those with an agenda are the science haters who do not want progress, not the scientists. Scientists ask themselves what is the best way to help humanity forward, and are full of doubts about their questions as well as about their answers. Certainty is for the fools.
Anyway, if you want my opinion on the EUSUPP, well hidden here below a hundred lines of unnecessary text, I will give it to you: all the EUSUPP conclusions are extraordinarily well motivated and reasonable. And if you want me to comment on the implications, I will add that yes, building a larger circular collider may look like not being the best way to invest public money, with all the other challenges we are facing today. But the politics of using public funds does not work that way: it's not a zero-sum game.
For one thing we should, IMHO, increase our spending tenfold to counter the threat of global warming. And zero down the expenses for new weapons. The progress of humankind requires us to think at our situation dynamically, not statically. Do we need a new collider? Yes and no. Do we need to keep our public spending for science constant? Not necessarily - we can take the extra we need from the defense budget, e.g.. I wonder why all these science haters do not complain about the latter.