>Or more likely…probably will not come to the correct conclusion. Every past “accepted” or “settled” scientific consensus now known to be wrong once had its merits tested from the most qualified to not only read through all of the literature, but actually properly understand it, debate it people?

So what? You're quickly approaching "Science is a liar sometimes" territory. Has scientific consensus been wrong in the past? Yes. So what?

>We see now that experts are frequently wrong and affected by politics and money.

Define "frequently," because I sure as shit haven't seen them be wrong more often than not, and I REALLY haven't seen them be wrong more often than commentators on the internet.