I do not understand the latter part of your question, but the first part is easy:

The mathematical procedure employed in the tests is exactly the same for all experiments that we do. They even had to be agreed upon among the two large LHC experiments (ATLAS and CMS) in discussions that took in excess of months to pin down all details.

Now, on the other hand, the data that is used is different (i.e. we get different views from different selections made to the data, some selecting b quarks, others W bosons, others, photons, etc), the teams of people are different, the software platform are different, the hardware in the experiments is different, the organizational structures are different, the collisions are different, etc, etc.

Since so much is different and independent, and that all results point in one direction (namely that the probability that the observation in data can be due to what we already know is smaller than 1 in 3 million) gives us a lot of confidence in the claim.

The Higgs field (and therefore its corresponding particle) has a fundamental role in electroweak symmetry breaking. That means that the way it relates to W and Z bosons cannot be too different from what is expected from the existing Standard Model (SM). Failure to fulfill that requirement would immediately point towards physics beyond the SM.

So, now we start the painstaking work of trying to characterize every single facet of this particle. The most immediate ones are: its mass, its spin and parity, and its relation with other particles. This is done with respect to the SM predictions and if anything deviates, then we have to see if some other model explains that deviation in a reasonable way (reasonable is defined according to Occam's Razor).

I think you answered your own question quite accurately: we're in the same situation as the electron, though this particle is much more massive, and therefore less abundant.
But only the future will tell.

Science can be crowd-sourced to some extent. But the amount of data here is simply huge. As someone pointed out, we start with something like PB/s and get it down to PB/year. So, putting out a torrent is not really the way to go. Then there is the fact that the data does not remain the sole property of the "collectors". Eventually they are published. And you say "but I can't get the journal articles..." but you are wrong. High Energy Physics has had an Open Access philosophy even before Open Access was invented and all of the published LHC experiment journal articles can only be submitted to journals that will provide them free of cost. Finally, CERN is very involved in the preservation of data from previous experiments so that people (and here we mean everyone, not just the "collectors") can re-analyze it. Those data are highly distilled, benefitting from decades of expertise and calibration so that they can be used more widely. In fact, some data are even made available for the EPPOG physics masterclasses so that high school students get dirty with real data.

But come on, if you can't even get the applet going...

That's more than one question...

1 - Stupidest thing: Star Trek teleporters; I wish! (I am a big TNG Trekkie.)
2 - Made me laugh: the notion that this is the final word on the Higgs boson, while we are still at the stage that it is a neutral boson with a lot of mass (for the record, 125 GeV/c^2 ~ 133 times the proton mass, not 125...).
3 - Same old press... The reporting was in general (read, the median) quite good. But there are always exceptions (read, long tails).

It's actually a pretty simple answer: the particle that we now found is so massive that the energy needed to prick it out from its slumber is very large.
Think of the the Higgs field as the surface of a lake. The Higgs particle would be the drops that detach from the surface when you throw a stone in. Regardless of the surface of the lake, the size of the stone that you need to throw in (collision energy) in order to get some splash (particles) depends on the density of the lake's contents (the field).

Bottom line: the Higgs lake is pretty dense such that only with huge stones can we get a splash out of it.

"22 gigawatts of electricity per hour"

Power is energy per unit time. Did they mean "22 gigawatts of electricity every hour for X hours"?
Can't Reuters get these things right?

Though I agree that roundabout-ifying the US is not feasible, your last statement is plainly WRONG: off the top of my counting, I see at least 12 in http://g.co/maps/cnqxz and http://g.co/maps/hd9jk .

You call that spin? I call it scientific advance. Is there anything else you can do with science other than exclude hypothesis? Before the LHC, the Higgs boson could not exist below 114 (let me gloss over the units) nor between 150 to 170 or so.

The last results from the LHC excluded it from 140 to more than 500. That means that any theory predicting a Higgs boson in that range just went out the window.

Let's see what comes up on the 13th.

Please make that: "the amount of data is much too low [...]". The energies are fine.

Who questioned God? Why is even God being brought to this discussion?

We understand different things at different levels. And when we do not have some fundamental understanding, we build what we call effective theories. It may very well be that the Higgs boson is composed of other particles. Even if it is, this entity has a role in interactions, which is not diminished whether it is composite or fundamental.

Take the atom. It was indivisible for a long long time. Then we figured out there was a nucleus, 99.9% empty space and electrons. Then the nucleus turned out to have protons and neutrons. And then it turned out that protons and neutrons are made of quarks and gluons.

At each level, we can have a working tool that explains to a good level of accuracy what is happening at that level. Take the example of gravity: Newton's laws work for 99% of what we do. There is no need to go for Special or General Relativity until you really consider gravity in scales which are not human: galaxies, etc.

So, no one is looking for a particle to rule them all. And no one is claiming that we have finally reached a final understanding of matter. Or energy.
In fact, finding the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model would fill in a piece in the puzzle, but not finish all puzzles.

Well, consider the problem of where can planets be with respect to their star and still sustain life as we know it. It's narrow: too close, too hot; too far, too cold.
The fact that there is a range left can gives you big insights into what the physical world has to look like just because the Higgs cannot be in a given range (or we would have seen it).

More generally, this is the only thing science can actually do: reject hypothesis. We are always left with some possibilities. But we progress by discarding possibilities that are not realized in Nature.

Page where the Dec 13th talk material will appear:
http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=164890

You are bang on.
A Higgs boson in our detectors (disclaimer: I am one of the people searching for that darn thing in one of the LHC experiments) is borne out starting by saving the "right" combination of particles detected in a given collision. Then we see if the particles detected (leptons, photons, etc) in each event resemble what the Standard Model theory predicts. In most cases we need to accumulate a lot of collisions until we can say that there is something.

It's a rare beast. Patience is needed and some people in the LHC experiments have been waiting to find it for almost 20 years now.