Here's the Tweet by the author of the blog post that kicks off the Twitter thread where this article was shared:
Is #BTC mining's climate-saving potential being overestimated? I argue it might, even if I think bitcoin enables emission cuts, renewables adoption & grid flexibility. Details in article, TL;DR in🧵 @thetrocro @jyn_urso [@nic__carter](https://twitter.com/nic__carter @PrestonPysh @DSBatten

And here's Tweet reply (quote Tweet) from Jyn Urso that kicks off an excellent Twitter thread providing a whole lot of info:
Thanks for writing this Lorenzo. I have some thoughts on your article. Here goes... I'm going to live tweet this thread to avoid an accident where I lose the thread before I can publish it. So please wait for the "/end" to know when I'm done. 🧵
reply
I dont think Humans have any impact on what the climate does. Even if we spent a trillion dollars on the climate we probably wouldnt move the needle. Of course we like to think we have that kind of control..
That being said, if people want to argue that humans impact the climate negatively, then it seems that bitcoin can impact it positively.. Why not
reply
The vast majority of climate scientists believe in human-caused climate change. You're free to your opinion, but it's not the consensus that scientists are coming to.
reply
not sure if you misspoke but 10000 million people can believe the earth is flat doesent mean it is
reply
These aren't random people. These are people who have spent their entire lives studying it. If 99% of cardiologists think I need a heart transplant, what do you think the likelihood is that they are wrong?
reply
How long does it take to study climate changes? I mean if you need to spend your entire life to figure out if humans impact it or not you are probably not the best scientist or they dont impact it very much
reply
climate scientists aren't random people? Why would someone spend their entire life studying climate change? Whos funding that? And what if they came to the conclusion that humans didnt cause climate change? Would they lose their funding?
reply
-No, climate scientists aren't random people, they are scientists with PhDs and multiple Master's degrees in their related climate-study fields.
-They spend their entire life studying climate change because that's what they chose to do around age 17-18 and are passionate about the topic. They then go on to get a Bachelor's Degree, a Master's Degree, a PhD, and then Post-Doctoral studies in climate change studies, as well as continued research in the field for decades afterwards.
-Generally, (If in the USA) the student has to fund their schooling themselves, through massive amounts of student loan debt, and if lucky, scholarships. Post-grads can receive funding from the government if they have a long enough resume and show promise and aptitude to continue studying in the field appropriately, but this isn't all-too common. They can receive funding from banks, from parents, from corporations, from a separate job, from their own pockets. They live in the real world just like you and me.
-If they come to the conclusion that humans didn't cause climate change, then their study & results / findings would be peer-reviewed by fellow scholars and academics the world-round. If other scientists and scholars found their results to be accurate and well-researched, with strong evidence for being definite, their findings would become well-credited and accepted as generally accurate. The opposite is true, unfortunately.
-If students / scholars / academics / scientists / doctors on climate change presented research that humans didn't cause climate change, and the evidence and results were peer-reviewed and studied by other professionals and found to be accurate, no, they would not lose their funding. Quite the opposite actually, they would probably get more funding. They would only lose their funding if they presented false evidence or lied, or altered documents, or did something else that goes against the merits of the scientific method.
reply
What makes this system so perfect? How do you know it produces facts and not misinformation?
reply
It's not perfect, no system is perfect. But it is the best we've got so far. That's what science is, basically: The best we've got... so far.
It's sort of like a decentralized information system where peers validate each other's research and.... uh.....
Yeah, it's a lot like Bitcoin actually - Don't trust, verify.
If you don't believe in climate change at this point you're either naive or in denial
reply
Not an argument
reply
Yes, you're right; it's a statement.
There is nothing to argue at this point. You're either naive or in denial, choose one.