Houses of cards in our locality.
I understand, but unlike the climate models, the particle physics computer models are very well tuned and understood. They are by nature much simpler. Because of this, it is possible to do “Monte Carlo” experiments on the computer to quite accurately predict the likelihood of an experimental result being random given the data set available. I’ve seen results presented as being “good”, not random, which involved sorting out only 4 observed events out of hundreds of billions- though the error bars on such events are very large, the probability that it’s statistically significant can be stated as much better than 99%. Later observations with more data have confirmed all such results I have seen.
Particle physics is a field that can accurately push statistics further than I believe any other field can. The scientists are very quick to throw out “dirty” events - the experiments require so much working perfectly, and everyone realizes that, so if something was a bit off the data is not relied on. Since so many people are involved in obtaining any experimental result, no one seems to have a big “personal ego” investment, and objectivity is maintained much more easily, I think.
You would probably be astonished at the amount of internal criticism among the scientists that goes on in the process of analyzing and publishing experimental results. It takes a heroic effort for results to gain a wealth of cheerleaders, and what ends up being published is usually very conservative.