JRowe,
You are most welcome to continue believing this about scientists, I understand the motivation behind it: it insulates you from challenging your beliefs. If all scientists are biased, then you need not consider what they say. This is a lazy way out, and in taking it, you become what you detest.
Tyson is a scientist, and an entertainer. When he wears the hat of an entertainer, he is not doing science, and he says all sorts of shit. When he publishes research, he is a scientist, and his address is quite different. If you want to know Tyson as a scientist then read his research. Don’t assess him as a scientist by how he acts on a talk show. That’s just absurd.
You are correct about Hubble and SS vs BB. What you don’t understand is that two ideas run parallel while both are investigated. Even when some evidence is found for one, many folks continue to study both. This is because all ideas are only tentative, and scientists have open minds.
The narrative you require science to have is self-serving. It supports your insulated position, and hence no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise; you will continue to not “call it as you see it,” but instead “call it as you need to see it,” so that you feel vindicated in your position.
Ultimately, it only does you a disservice.