Eureka! .... or perhaps not?

Zero passed me a copy of a new science (?) magazine that appeared with the Times this month. If I have understood correctly, it is to be a monthly, issued along with the newspaper. The title is Eureka.

The editorial on p.3 suggests that climate change is the dark side of technological advances (er, nuclear weapons and .. and ..?).

We have two choices. The first option, a self-denying one, takes us backwards: a retreat from technology and the wealth that has come with it. The second, more uncertain, path marches forward into a world saved by science. The success of this choice depends on the brains of our scientists, the will of our politicians and the hearts of our citizens.

"Will" and "hearts" suggests to me ethics having something to do with it, in addition to the science itself, rather putting in question the preceding sentence. And the materialistic assumption is as clear as the lack of logic.

Now, if we are dependent on the quality of the science present in the magazine ... God save us! The complete muddle of the units in the box "Quantum of Cool" on p.5 is described in the first comment to the post Eureka.

The suggested area of contact of 1 square centimetre in the calculation below suggests that the female of the species walks only on the heels of her stilettos. The units of pressure are not newtons, and weight is not measured in kilogrammes, the working of the calculation is incorrect but the answer is correct.

If you can identify a single correct statement of physics in the piece below, do let me know - again see the comments at Eureka.

As usual - it must be wrong, it was in the Times!