In the last few days there have been two excellent examples of how bad science and bad press coverage work together to distort our world. In both cases, it is possible to see examples of so-called scientists pandering to the politically correct world view and the politically correct press. In one case, the result is a mildly amusing news item, with little real impact on the world as we know it. In the other, the results could have significant impacts on our lives and the lives of our children.

James Pennebaker, PhD, Chair of the Department of Psychology at The University of Texas published a study concerning the number of words spoken during a day by males and females. The inspiration for their study was the often repeated belief that women talked about three times as much as men. The results of the study indicated this was a myth, and the news media had a field day with those results.

The study, while frivolous, was a legitimate academic exercise. Dr. Pennebaker and his team studied 400 college students in the United States and Mexico. Using recording devices they were able to record and count words spoken by the test subjects. The findings, according to Pennebaker and company, were that there was no statistical difference between the number of words spoken by males or females. Additionally, according to published accounts of the research, other psychologists agreed with the findings.

One report stated that psychologists agreed the college environment was somewhat unique. Still, the psychologists believed any real difference between the number of words spoken by men and women would have shown up in the study. Once again, so-called scientists are taking one small sample, and extrapolating to the rest of the world.

Anyone who has taken the time to study how research is conducted would know this study is of limited value. At one time, researchers would have gone out of their way to explain that the study’s scope was limited, and generalizing from those results would be dangerous. Today, if enough scientists believe something is a certain way, well by golly that is the way it is.

It does not matter that the study consisted only of college students. It does not matter that students from two different cultures were studied. It does not matter that the college years are arguably some of the most social years in a person’s life. It does not matter that life in the world after college is a totally different environment, and only a small percentage of the population actually goes to college. The only thing that matters is the psychology world, at least the ones quoted in the media, think the study is correct.

Luckily, the UT study has limited implications. It does not really matter who talks the most. Unfortunately, the same rigid scientific principals of subjective evaluation are applied to other areas as well. A good example of this sort of fuzzy thinking is the concept of carbon tradeoffs or carbon credits.

If you are not aware of carbon or emission credit trading, you must be living under a rock. Al Gore has justified his extravagant use of electricity and gasoline products by claiming to buy carbon "credits." During his mostly unwatched Live Earth Concert, much was made of the bands that donated money to plant trees or took other steps to offset the amount of carbon emissions they generated as part of the event. At one point, NBC’s Lester Holt was interviewing the founder of a "green" activist group concerning the issue of carbon footprint and carbon credits. Lester’s carbon foot print was approximately twice the national average, according to the organization’s scale. When Lester asked what he could, other than actually reducing his carbon footprint, he was told he could donate to an organization that was planting trees or in other ways working to reduce carbon emissions or carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Any scientist seriously supporting that concept that planting trees in one part of the country will affect the pollution in another part of the country is either delusional or lying. Carbon tradeoffs or carbon credits are simply a way for the rich people and countries of the world to continue to pollute with a clear conscience. Al Gore or Madonna can pollute all they want by donating a few percent of their income to a "green" activist group or program. At the same time, they can use questionable science and a liberal media to force the rest of us to conserve, without regard to the costs or inconvenience we incur.

There is an irony in the two areas of pseudo-science discussed above. Listening to Al Gore speak is stressful. Still, it clearly contradicts Dr. Pennebaker’s study. There is no way Al Gore could use 16,000 words a day. By the time he utters 5,000 words it is way past dinner time.