Bitcoin supporter Daniel Batten as soon as once more mentioned: took purpose He was criticized within the New York Instances for selling “junk science” to help an anti-Bitcoin tone.
“Properly, Bitcoin Max was proper (once more),” Batten mentioned in a latest social media submit.
flawed methodology
Batten is referring to New York Instances article It criticized Bitcoin mining for its extreme power consumption.
Nonetheless, as Bitcoin proponents have identified, the methodology the controversial article relied on is inherently flawed, on condition that it relied on marginal emissions calculations.
Do not forget that hit NYTimes article about Bitcoin mining and the way nobody believed us after we mentioned it was junk science? Properly, Bitcoin Max was proper (once more)
How the New York Instances misapplied marginal emissions to advance litigation is confirmed flawed in peer overview pic.twitter.com/5vR2NlTwGU
— Daniel Batten (@DSBatten) October 27, 2025
Marginal emissions characterize the extra emissions ensuing from consuming an extra unit of electrical energy.
A latest peer-reviewed examine printed within the journal Nature Local weather Change reveals that as a result of energy methods are dynamic, such an strategy may very well overestimate the affect of emissions.
Utilizing rooftop solar energy for instance, the examine reveals that daytime rooftop solar energy displaces different clear power sources earlier than fossil fuels, so emissions reductions are usually smaller.
Batten applies the identical logic to Bitcoin. The CO₂ affect of Bitcoin mining is regarded as a lot smaller, and never all the further MWh consumed by miners is fossil gas intensive.
This outdated methodology doesn’t take note of lowered renewable power era or clear power investments.
