I don't understand this argument as the fossil fuel industry is worth many trillions of dollars, so the argument is much stronger in favour of them being the ones not wanting to change. The climate protection industry is small in comparison. Industries like green electricity generation, resource use reduction and recycling also have benefits beyond climate alone, so are becoming the right choice even without that consideration.
There is also a big "industry" working now and historically on the link between tobacco and smoking. Do you think that they were just doing so to make money and there is no actual link? Who you believe is an epistemological issue: none of us can research everything ourselves so we choose who to believe based on our influence and internal desires.
Anyone remember the global cooling scare? Or the nuclear war scare? Or the acid rain scare? The threat of nuclear war and acid rain were very real, they just got solved (almost). It's like the Y2K bug: people love to say it was a lot of nonsense and a non-event, but it was so exactly because a lot of work was done to avoid it. Nuclear war is no longer a threat due to diplomacy; acid rain is severely reduced due to international treaties & technological solutions. These problems are perfect examples of a real problems being solved by concerted international action.