New Scientist’s Bitcoin Ban Article: Experts Criticize Bad Science
A New Scientist article on January 8, 2024, provoked discussion by raising the subject of whether countries might consider outlawing bitcoin because of its environmental impact. Many fans of bitcoin have voiced their disapproval of the editorial in strong terms. Daniel Batten, a specialist in environmental, social, and governance (ESG), severely criticized the paper, calling it “bad science, not new science” and claiming that it used “widely discredited methodologies.”
Specialists Attack the New Scientist Editorial for Misrepresenting the Environmental Effects of Bitcoin
Many supporters of bitcoin voiced their displeasure with the most recent editorial published in New Scientist on Monday. In his article, Matthew Sparkes discusses whether or not governments should forbid the use of bitcoin (BTC) because of its energy-intensive mining procedures. Sparkes claims that even though many miners are using renewable energy sources and lowering flare gas emissions to mine the digital currency, they are “unwilling to take action to curb the cryptocurrency’s energy and water use.”
According to Sparkes, “some campaigners” support government involvement in this issue. The author also discusses attempts to get in touch with the Bitcoin Mining Council and seven other bitcoin mining companies to hear their viewpoints, however none of these organizations replied to requests for an interview. Nonetheless, Sparkes was able to communicate with a few “campaigners” who are in favor of government intervention, such as Alex de Vries.
Bitcoin supporters frequently believe that De Vries, who was once connected to the Dutch central bank De Nederlandsche Bank NV (DNB), has extremely biased and inaccurate data regarding the energy consumption of the Bitcoin network. On the social media network X (previously known as Twitter), where proponents of cryptocurrency expressed their thoughts, the New Scientist piece did not receive much positive reception. Nic Carter posted on the social media account for New Scientist, “Just to let you know, this is not true.”
ESG analyst Daniel Batten added his voice as well. Batten declared, “This is not new science; this is bad science.” “Using widely rejected methods, data from two years ago that has since undergone significant changes, and failing to consider positive externalities.” You have taken a regressive stance that not even 25 of Greenpeace’s 26 branches have adopted. In response to Batten’s remark, another individual answered, “Exactly. A remarkably poor article. The essay is anti-scientific, and Sparkes is blatantly dishonest.
Similar to a large amount of modern science, the New Scientist piece has stoked concern about how scientists and the academic elite have damaged science’s reputation by trying to convince the public that 2+2 equals 5. A bitcoin user disclosed that Sparkes, the author of the New Scientist article, barred them for merely asking questions about the topic. The author of New Scientist allegedly deleted his X account, and as of this writing, the account is no longer visible on X.
