The discovery that the ocean carbon sink is slowing is probably much worse news than the Arctic sea ice reduction, although it remains that both of them are "stock and flow" problems that many humans seem literally unable to understand (paper title and abstract pasted below).  I'm beginning to suspect that this is because of a genetic difference (although obviously not related to intelligence as such).

"Understanding Public Complacency About Climate Change: Adults' Mental Models of Climate Change Violate Conservation of Matter

"Public attitudes about climate change reveal a contradiction. Surveys show most Americans believe climate change poses serious risks but also that reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sufficient to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations or net radiative forcing can be deferred until there is greater evidence that climate change is harmful. US policymakers likewise argue it is prudent to wait and see whether climate change will cause substantial economic harm before undertaking policies to reduce emissions. Such wait-and-see policies erroneously presume climate change can be reversed quickly should harm become evident, underestimating substantial delays in the climate's response to anthropogenic forcing. We report experiments with highly educated adults-graduate students at MIT-showing widespread misunderstanding of the fundamental stock and flow relationships, including mass balance principles, that lead to long response delays. GHG emissions are now about twice the rate of GHG removal from the atmosphere. GHG concentrations will therefore continue to rise even if emissions fall, stabilizing only when emissions equal removal. In contrast, results show most subjects believe atmospheric GHG concentrations can be stabilized while emissions into the atmosphere continuously exceed the removal of GHGs from it. These beliefs-analogous to arguing a bathtub filled faster than it drains will never overflow-support wait-and-see policies but violate conservation of matter. Low public support for mitigation policies may be based more on misconceptions of climate dynamics than high discount rates or uncertainty about the risks of harmful climate change."

This related working paper is also of interest.  
 

What can you learn?  You can learn to keep your nose out of the marketplace.

In reviewing the history of these "Bans" all I see if government being used to keep a low cost superior product off the market.

DDT is the one thing that could have cheaply prevented the malaria deaths in Africa.  The Libs condemned millions by their actions.

The ozone hole has yet to be linked to any negative result.   Meanwhile, we have done a costly replacement of freon in air conditioners with a much less effective and efficient substitute -- increasing the energy bills of consumers.

"Global Warming" is the latest scam to charge people a carbon tax and rape their pocketbooks yet again for something that is unneeded.

John Bailo
Sutext: