But apparently you are not, O wise one (yes, you know that I would catch this post).
Of course you would 
*hughughug*
The cognitive-scientists-are-cognitive-so-if-we-believe-them-we-can't-trust-them argument has always been a bit strange to me, but whatever—I think the rest of my post still stands. Your excellency, am I allowed to say I find it inconsistent for environmentalists to (rightfully, I believe) shriek in alarm about the deleterious effects of fossil fuels but forget about that whenever a nuclear plant does something vaguely negative, despite the fact that the worst nuclear power accident in history has resulted/will result in, oh, 4,000-ish deaths, which is probably wildly less than the number of deaths that will be attributable to global warming over the next century?
After this and the New Zealand quakes... I'm sure this has been covered earlier in the thread somewhere, but is there any indication as to which fault lines are the most likely next events?
Such things are not predictable 
"Around fault lines"... that's about it.
Acknowledgment doesn't necessarily cure fallacies or "judgmental errors".
We went through the dot-com and housing bubble at the same time.
Of course it makes one more aware but avoiding the fallacy certainly seems less natural as it takes more time and is less automatic.
