Unfortunately, there are people that take that "we really don't know for sure" comment as a negative as "proof" of whatever thing they are pushing instead. The internet is full of them.

I still think it's important that scientists be factual about the uncertainty, though. The alternative whacko theories also have uncertainty, so if we hold ourselves to that standard, we can also rationally hold them to their even greater degrees of uncertainty. When we try to pretend that a current theory is 100% certain and factual just to win an argument with idiots, it invites obvious and IMHO reasonable criticism of all of science.

Science is not a set of facts caved in stone. Science is a process; a way of thinking critically and exploring the boundaries of reality in a way that makes a best effort at getting closer and closer to the boundaries of the knowable in a rational and reasonably-objective way. It often makes missteps and corrections along the way, and we can acknowledge that openly while also contrasting it to non-science junk that isn't even on the right track.

I've come to somewhat randomly expose a few of my major biases and preconceptions in the last couple months, which has been very interesting. This video hits the nail on the head for science communication (the 2nd half is the meta portion, the 1st half addresses a specific issue): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzpIsjgapAk

I took a philosophy class one where several of the participants were getting upset that there weren’t just facts to learn because up to that point they had not been exposed to any kind of uncertainty. These were mostly students in the sciences too.