\n
Ah, the NY Times, that trumpet of moral superiority, now bellowing about Bitcoin\’s “excessive energy consumption”-a modern drama of misplaced outrage! How tragically funny, the self-appointed guardians of virtue, wielding marginal emission calculations like a priest quoting a dead letter to condemn a plague. 🤡
\n
“Indeed, the Bitcoin maxis were not mistaken (once more),” scoffs Daniel Batten, that hero of the keyboard, in a post ripe with the aroma of schadenfreude. “Behold, the NYT’s ‘junk science’ now squirmed under the microscope of academia!”
\n
Methodology? What Methodology? 😅
\n
This “anti-Bitcoin narrative,” as Batten calls it, now lies before us-nailed by a peer-reviewed study from Nature Climate Change, as though struck by divine comedy. The NYT, in their wisdom, imagined Bitcoin miners slurping fossil fuels like a cavern of Mongols-c’est absurde!
\n
Remember the NYTimes hitpiece on Bitcoin? That “green” crusade? We told you it was junk science, and… surprise! A peer-reviewed study debunks their marginal emission witchcraft. 🧙♂️
– Daniel Batten (@DSBatten) October 27, 2025
\n
Embrace this truth: marginal emissions are not the gospel, but a knight without armor. The NYT’s static estimate of climate impact? A ghost of the 19th century! The truth lies in dynamic systems, where solar panels at noon displace clean energy, not death-dealing coal. 🌞
\n
Batten’s rebuttal, henceforth, is a pastoral letter of logic: Bitcoin’s CO₂ footprint? Overestimated! Miners, those mythical creatures, feast on curtailed renewables and clean energy-neither a satanic ritual nor a Hamlet of destruction. 🚧
\n
Ah, the NY Times, that trumpet of moral superiority, now bellowing about Bitcoin’s “excessive energy consumption”-a modern drama of misplaced outrage! How tragically funny, the self-appointed guardians of virtue, wielding marginal emission calculations like a priest quoting a dead letter to condemn a plague. 🤡
“Indeed, the Bitcoin maxis were not mistaken (once more),” scoffs Daniel Batten, that hero of the keyboard, in a post ripe with the aroma of schadenfreude. “Behold, the NYT’s ‘junk science’ now squirmed under the microscope of academia!”
Methodology? What Methodology? 😅
This “anti-Bitcoin narrative,” as Batten calls it, now lies before us-nailed by a peer-reviewed study from Nature Climate Change, as though struck by divine comedy. The NYT, in their wisdom, imagined Bitcoin miners slurping fossil fuels like a cavern of Mongols-c’est absurde!
Remember the NYTimes hitpiece on Bitcoin? That “green” crusade? We told you it was junk science, and… surprise! A peer-reviewed study debunks their marginal emission witchcraft. 🧙♂️
– Daniel Batten (@DSBatten) October 27, 2025
Embrace this truth: marginal emissions are not the gospel, but a knight without armor. The NYT’s static estimate of climate impact? A ghost of the 19th century! The truth lies in dynamic systems, where solar panels at noon displace clean energy, not death-dealing coal. 🌞
Batten’s rebuttal, henceforth, is a pastoral letter of logic: Bitcoin’s CO₂ footprint? Overestimated! Miners, those mythical creatures, feast on curtailed renewables and clean energy-neither a satanic ritual nor a Hamlet of destruction. 🚧
Read More
- The Rookie Saves Fans From A Major Disappointment For Lucy & Tim In Season 8
- Kali’s Shocking Revelation About Eleven’s Sacrifice In Stranger Things Season 5 Is Right
- Stranger Things’s Randy Havens Knows Mr. Clarke Saved the Day
- Meaningful decisions through limited choice. How the devs behind Tiny Bookshop were inspired to design their hit cozy game
- Chevy Chase Was Put Into a Coma for 8 Days After Heart Failure
- Why Natasha Lyonne Wanted To Move Away From Poker Face, And Whether She’d Play Charlie Cale Again
- 20 Years Before The Boys, Black Noir Beat Homelander In A Fight
- NCIS Officially Replaces Tony DiNozzo 9 Years After Michael Weatherly’s Exit
- Gold Rate Forecast
- James Cameron Has a Backup Plan for Avatar
2025-10-27 09:45