Really - I thought that we were debating an article by a scientist, who along with many other scientists disagrees with that position.
>>This is supported by technical arguments which are hard to communicate to the general public.
And yet the general public is being asked to pay for it. Perhaps sorting out that gap and explaining how understanding dark matter will be as important as (for example) curing cancer or alzheimers disease, or more prosaically cystic fibrosis or malaria would be a good thing? Or even understanding ecologies and the global climate? Will the new accelerator be carbon neutral? Will understanding dark matter prevent the collapse of our planet and the deaths of our children?
If I were a politician funding this project I would want some pretty cold, hard information on these things.