\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
- AWS crash causes $2,000 Smart Beds to overheat and get stuck upright
- The Boys: Sister Sage’s Major Weakness Revealed In Gen V Season 2
- Gold Rate Forecast
- Brent Oil Forecast
- When will Absolum have crossplay? It might take a while, but It’s on the horizon
- Does Escape from Duckov have controller support? Here’s the full breakdown
- Actors Who Voiced the Most Disney Characters
- Chris O’Donnell Would Love a Grey’s Anatomy Reunion on 911 Nashville
- Only Murders in the Building Recap: Bodies, Bodies, Bodies
- Shape of Dreams Best Builds Guide – Aurena, Shell, Bismuth & Nachia
2025-10-27 09:45