Here's the thing. If the Koch bros stand up and say there's no AGW issue, that provides no information because that's exactly what you'd expect them to say, regardless of the facts. But if they stood up and said "OMG, it's REAL! We SEE IT!" You'd sit up and take notice because that's going against type. If WB says "there's no problem with the tax laws as they are" it wouldn't mean diddly, but if he stands up and says "The tax laws need an overhaul. People like me are able to pay less taxes than my receptionist" then I'd say you either provide a realistic motive for him to do that, or accept that there may actually be a problem.
Other than that, WB doesn't really enter my sphere of awareness.
So when Warren Buffet calls higher estate (death tax) or even any sort of estate/inheritance tax, his intentions seem to be wanting to fairly redistribute wealth, while his underlying intentions are Greed. One of his major sources of income comes from life insurance policies to business owners. They are forced to fork over high premiums for there family to collect so when they die, their family will have enough to cover the tax burden 15% of a business worth 1Million say. That's 150k in taxes to the beneficiary. The complication in this is that they have to come up with the funds, OR sell their newly inherited estate. And Warren comes in and low balls them to buy out the state.
Income tax is the most destructive way to raise revenue, not counting the hidden "inflation tax."
Warren Buffett says he paid only $7 million in taxes last year. But, he fails to mention that he owns something like 23% of Berkshire Hathaway, and in 2010, Berkshire Hathaway's income tax expense was $5.6B. How Much Tax Did Warren Buffet Really Pay? - Ricochet.com
Therefore, Warren Buffett's pro-rata share of Berkshire Hathaway's income tax expense was more than one billion dollars.
The Koch Brothers and Warren Buffet are polar opposites when it comes to morality; there is no comparison. What Microsoft is doing is just like what Exxon and Chevron have done; they have a political agenda and then warp the science to fit their agenda. Yes this happens on the other side of the GW debate too, but not to the extent that the corporatists do it and certainly not for the same intent. When the GW "alarmists" skew data it is usually out of passion for the cause, not to make obscene personal wealth. If the Alarmist turns out wrong, we spent a little more than we needed and end up with a cleaner planet. If the denier turns out to be wrong we end up dead.
Overall, I find it criminal when science gets politicized like this whole climate change research has.////
Although they are not a cookie-cutter contrast, their similarities should be considered by both camps. They both are deceptive in their actual intentions.
We have protectionist laws that favor some companies over others, I agree there, that is corporatism and needs to be ended. We have energy companies buying up patents for no reason other than to make sure alternative energy is scare and impractical to develop. Copyright and patent law is an anchor to development and innovation. We would likely have viable, renewable, clean energy by now if it wasn't for the hurdles government throws in the way of development and competition and we likely wouldn't be all that concerned with GW as a product of Humans.
Also, finally, typically when someone disagrees with some points or another of man made global warming, the fanatics typically label dissenters as deniers rather than skeptics which is more accurate and neutral, whereas denier is negative. I'm glad you are one of the few who can differentiate.