\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
- United Airlines can now kick passengers off flights and ban them for not using headphones
- Gold Rate Forecast
- How to Solve the Glenbright Manor Puzzle in Crimson Desert
- How to Get to the Undercoast in Esoteric Ebb
- How to Complete Bloom of Tranquility Challenge in Infinity Nikki
- All Golden Ball Locations in Yakuza Kiwami 3 & Dark Ties
- 8 Actors Who Could Play Blackbeard In One Piece Live-Action Season 3
- A Dark Scream Theory Rewrites the Only Movie to Break the 2-Killer Rule
- NEXO PREDICTION. NEXO cryptocurrency
- Blind Tekken 8 player reaches one of the game’s highest ranks after two years of grinding
2025-10-27 09:45