Bitcoin supporter Daniel Batten once again said: took aim He was criticized in the New York Times for promoting “junk science” to support an anti-Bitcoin tone.
“Well, Bitcoin Max was right (again),” Batten said in a recent social media post.
flawed methodology
Batten is referring to New York Times article It criticized Bitcoin mining's excessive energy consumption.
However, as Bitcoin proponents have pointed out, the methodology the controversial article relied on is inherently flawed, given that it relied on marginal emissions calculations.
Remember that hit NYTimes article about Bitcoin mining and how no one believed us when we said it was junk science? Well, Bitcoin Max was right (again)
How the New York Times misapplied marginal emissions to advance litigation is proven wrong in peer review pic.twitter.com/5vR2NlTwGU
— Daniel Batten (@DSBatten) October 27, 2025
Marginal emissions represent the additional emissions resulting from consuming an additional unit of electricity.
A recent peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nature Climate Change shows that because power systems are dynamic, such an approach may actually overestimate the impact of emissions.
Using rooftop solar power as an example, the study shows that during the day, rooftop solar power displaces other clean energy sources before fossil fuels, so emissions reductions tend to be smaller.
Batten applies the same logic to Bitcoin. The CO₂ impact of Bitcoin mining is thought to be much smaller, and not all of the extra MWh consumed by miners is fossil fuel intensive.
This outdated methodology does not take into account reduced renewable energy generation or clean energy investments.
