Scepticism

On the 23rd of September, the OPERA collaboration announced that they had measured the speed of neutrinos travelling from CERN to their detector at Gran Sasso, and that it exceeded the speed of light by 0.00002%.  The announcement was met with excitement and enthusiasm, but the dominant view amongst physicists seems to be that it is due to some -- as yet unidentified -- systematic error.  Some have sought to draw a parallel between this scepticism, and the opposition to action over climate change.

Four ways in which scepticism about superluminal neutrinos is unlike scepticism about climate change.

1. It's new:  All new, as yet unverified results should be treated with a healthy dose of scepticism.  OPERA released its preprint just over a month ago.  The current understanding of global climate change and its possible causes is the result of decades of work.
2. It's weird: Neutrinos travelling at more than the speed of light is difficult to reconcile with a wealth of well-established science.  On the other hand, carbon dioxide is known to act as a green-house gas, and this behaviour is well understood.  While it might be surprising that net human emissions have been great enough to make a difference, it does not pose a problem for fundamental science.  Not all claims are equal.
3. It's the scepticism of peers: The scrutiny that the OPERA result is receiving is led by physicists, people who understand something of the strengths and weaknesses of such experiments and can put the result in context.  Climate change scepticism is led by commentators, particularly in print and radio.  Of course, there is also one particularly committed comedic performance artist, and a Catholic cardinal!
4. It's not a threat: the confirmation of superluminal neutrinos would be truly monumental, and might lead to revolutionary discoveries and technologies.  However, it would have little impact on the way people live for the foreseeable future (short though that might be).  The possibility of anthropogenic climate change, however, presents a direct challenge.  Even modest changes in weather patterns will affect land use, agriculture, the prevalence and spread of certain diseases, and the way many of us live.  Studies have repeatedly shown that the cost of mitigating action is modest compared to the potential cost of inaction - a clear case for taking out insurance.  The case for action on climate change doesn't require "proof", just the existence of a credible threat.