Honest and astute people know themselves and they know the technical basis of their observations, so to suggest that not only are they biased, but they don't even know they're biased is more than a bit rich - it's just disingenuous fog and has no necessary bearing on the value or objectivity of what's being said.
Oh, come now!
The tobacco industry could produce battalions of experts that could say quite honestly that smoking does not damage health. It wasn't true, but are you saying all their scientists were deliberatly telling untruths, that they understood that smoking is harmful but said otherwise? Or was it a matter of genuine scientific disagreement, and it was pure coincidence that all the tobacco industry scientists just happened, by chance, to take one view? Likewise the oil industry and the early days of the debate on anthropogenic global warming (when it still was a matter of debate).
As Upton Sinclair said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
