Often it isn't the actual science that is bogus, it is the conclusions that are bogus, more like over-hyped. People are often not exactly sure what was studied, specifically, so their conclusions can be less than informed. However, people reading about the science will understand the conclusions rather than the actual study. We are a painfully under-educated society (in the US at least) in science and logic. I often give a logic quiz to people to demonstrate how people can easily draw erroneous conclusions from valid scientific evidence.

It rained, therefore the road is wet. --> if it rains there is no way the road won't get wet
The road is wet, therefore it must have rained. --> except for all you know a fire hydrant went off, someone spilled a jug, whatever.

A reasonable person can look at a wet road, correlate the clouds in the sky, the smell, etc - and conclude that it did, in fact, rain. In science, you are not allowed to do that. The evidence you are presented (a wet road) does not allow you to conclude that it rained. The observation that the road was wet is valid; the conclusion is erroneous. The general public is not able to separate experience (most people know when it has rained, even if they didn't actually see it rain) from science which is much more rigid in drawing conclusions.