That would be because a most of the open-source drivers (yes, video is one of the exceptions) are baked right into the kernel and Just Work (TM)(if the hardware's supported, that is). This is why there's no excruciatingly slow "please wait while we search for drivers" when you plug in a new keyboard or mouse; there is no driver.
True, sometimes a device is recognized incorrectly and one needs to dig into arcane settings, but at least most of it is documented in some form or another most of the time. In windows, these problems are less common, but when they happen, far more time is spent on them (aaugh... shotgun debugging the Windows Registry)...
I fully understand the argument of the article to which you linked...
FACT. Not arguable.
WRONG. You did not understand the argument of the article.
The data shows their models weren't just wrong... they were HORRIBLY wrong - way, way overestimated.
therefore one should carefully consider how much faith one invests in these models' ability to predict the future.
That's plain FUD. You could just as well say one cannot invest faith in anything science produces, because our knowledge of science has been proven wrong and refined in the past. Repeatedly.
As explained in the link in my previous post (did you even read it?), if you take a set of data that fluctuates noisily but has an long-term upwards trend, you truncate it carefully so that the beginning of your truncated subset falls near a high point in the random fluctuations, and you use that to deny the upwards trend, then you are using a trick called "cherry-picking". You can argue you're presenting "simply facts", but it's dishonest. Watt's also dishonest is failing to declare a rather blatant conflict of interest.
Also, your own post contains contradictions. You're saying "...OBSERVED warming trend is significantly less than the IPCC 1990 PREDICTED..." (implying there is still a warming trend), and then you're saying "it has leveled off". Only one of them can be true, and it's the first one. There is still a warming trend, and yes, it's lower than the low-end 1990 predictions. Scientists have been debating over why that is for a while now. Heat getting trapped in the depths of the pacific ocean seems to be gaining traction as the most prevalent hypothesis, which is worrisome because once this finite heat reservoir is saturated, the heating will pick up with a vengeance. More info here, here, here and here (the 3 first links are all discussing the study in the 4th; I'll let you pick which source you like best).
I doubt any scientists even the ones who believe in AGW want to cut off all oil now
Even among environmentalist, only a tiny (but verbal) minority thinks that would be a good idea. For the rest of us, CO2 emissions can be reduced significantly with minimal (or even positive) economic impact through a number of measures, but "cutting off all oil now" obviously is not one of them. There currently is no realistic replacement for oil on the horizon for the purpose of aviation, intercontinental ship transport and polymer synthesis. What can be done is to put gradual innovation pressure on the market (through carrots and sticks, i.e. tax breaks and taxes) as to slowly phase out coal for electricity generation and oil for most ground transportation. There are enough alternatives available to make that happen, and more local jobs would be created than lost. One could also think about a small global tax on bunker fuel. This would be a boon for employment in western economies, where it would help locally manufactured goods compete with ones that were shipped halfway around the globe.
I do fully agree on that. As a scientist, I bury my face firmly in my palm 80% of the time I see a science story being reported in the mainstream media. They almost always get key points wrong - often to the extent that it completely twists the meaning of the original discovery. Even university press releases are not a whole lot better. In this light, I do indeed understand the general pubic gets confused and frustrated. But that's not a reason to dismiss science altogether or to resort to secondary sources who have an agenda and/or understand the science even less that the above.
What's going on is the Tea Party is apparently dragging the republican party to the right of center (politically).
The Republican party has been well to the right of the center since long before there was ever talk about this Tea Party. The Tea Party is pulling them towards the extreme right abyss, where there be totalitarianism (just like at the extreme left). From an international point of view, even the Democrats are center-right. The US political system is unbalanced, with no credible left. Maybe one will spring up once the Republican party has crashed and burned and the Democrats have been pulled a little bit more to the right by non-extremist Republican refugees. It's even possible the new left will call itself "Republicans", just like in the early years of the two-party system.