No one denies personal benefit and peer pressure can sway professional judgement, even in an honest man.

I just find it easier to believe that the highly paid mouthpieces of industries with billions to lose are much more likely to be biased en masse (whether deliberately or by accident) than a loosely organized and highly competitive academic/scientific community covering many different research fields and organizations. I'm willing to concede the scientific question may not be completely settled yet (if I were a betting man I might be willing to wager a dime to the dollar odds for your side!). But as far as the position you insist on adhering to, that the entire scientific community has honestly deluded itself is just as likely as the industry shills have, that is simply out of the question. The industry's motive is simply much, much, much more compelling. And they have a history, as well.

I find this debate highly reminiscent of the debate over the carcinogenic properties of cigarettes and the controversy between creationism and evolution. The creationists may be innocently deluding themselves, but its a lot harder to be as charitable with the tobacco executives and their consulting physicians.