I waded through that crap.

I was hundreds of words in. first talking about his life ("I'm an environmentalist!"), then yelling about someone I don't care about, then discussions about various battles in the media,

The article points out perfectly accurately that a Bitcoin transaction costs thousands of times as much energy - but then the only "refutation" of this is that Bitcoin miners go to areas where power is cheap and supposedly would be wasted, and there’s no proof at all except “A few local industry experts told me that they estimated that at least 200–225 TWh per year of surplus hydro power exists, just in Sichuan.”

There's over 6000 words of rambling, discursive text, almost none of which has anything to do with the matter at hand.. Inside that article is a 1000 word explanation struggling to get out - except that I think that if it were expressed tersely, the obvious errors would pop out.

I would be embarrassed to give that article to people even if I believed it is true.

If you want an examination of these ideas, give it to me shorn of endless petty squabbles between people I don't know and don't care about.