Do I detect more than a hint of professional indignance here?
There is one very big hole in your justification, which I would suggest if you acknowledged, would assist your case no end. That is the profit driven conflict of interest which science has. All scientists have it, unless they are really working non profit (Are your stories not designed to make you some income?)
Failing to mention it, in the context of credibility doesn't help at all because more and more people are starting to see that leaving out uncomfortable truths which are incredibly relevant just makes your dialog a kind of advert at best, but at worst a dictation, of what we are allowed to think, and not to think.
The truth is that by science itself being locked into most activity requiring to be for profit, science itself is as guilty as any other industry for the planetary devastation we are seeing, as a result of the business for profit, all business for profit, itself being fundamentally dependent on extracted energy at its input.
Personally I think the reason mainstream science seems so blind to this, is that it has actively ejected religion, which was needed to remind us of the things that seem forgotten without it, that the activity of making profit itself, is actually not all that good.
Ask yourself honestly if you dare to even talk about this in public?
What would happen to your profitability if you did? Would that not worry you at all?