Hi team at @abc_science I wrote to you around a week ago, but have not had a reply, so will recast this as an open letter. I'm not sure if you are aware, but there is an article on your website on Bitcoin mining that references bad science, unsubstantiated opinions, and claims that have been debunked multiple times in peer reviewed literature. Given your commitment to "good teaching" you espouse, I would suggest that if you are interested in remaining faithful to your mission, your brand, your credibility and the children you presumably do not want to misinform with bad science - you retract the article, and preferably replace it with a properly researched one based on contemporary data. While the article is embedded with many misleading contentions, I will focus on the most important three. False claim 1: "Digiconomist estimates that one Bitcoin transaction uses on the order of 800 kWh of electricity, enough to power an average US household for nearly a month. " Digiconomist is not a reliable source. It is the self-described hobby blog of Alex de Vries, and does not quality for citations even by Wikipedia. This is also factually incorrect, as Bitcoin energy consumption (and emissions) do not come from its transactions. The false inference that bitcoin energy/emissions emanate from transactions has been debunked four times in peer reviewed studies (Masanet et al,  2019, Dittmar et al. 2019, Sedlmeir et al, 2020 and Sai and Vraken, 2023). Additionally, the entirety of de Vries' work, which created a lot of the early misconceptions about Bitcoin and energy was debunked for having fundamental flaws in both methodology, and data-gathering in 2023 by Sai and Vraken, False claim 2: " It is critical that we find more energy-efficient ways to mine Bitcoin, or else the ramifications for our world will be severe." This claim is not supported by science, and makes the mistake of conflating energy use with environmental harm. Bitcoin mining is estimated by Cambridge University (widely considered the Gold Standard by policy makers and regulators on the subject of Bitcoin and energy) to use 59% sustainable energy source: https://forklog.com/en/low-carbon-energy-share-in-bitcoin-mining-exceeds-59/ , and has been found in 30 peer reviewed studies to have significant environmental benefits Source: https://www.linkedin.com/in/danielsbatten/recent-activity/articles/ These include : 1. accelerating the renewable energy transition (Lal et al, 2023) 2. obviating the need for gas peaker plants (Bruno et al, 2023) 3. stabilizing the grid (Rudd et al, 2023) 4. halving the payback time for solar farms (Hakimi et al, 2024) 5. accelerating renewable microgrid development (Moghimi et al 2024) 6. reducing methane emissions from landfills (Sechrest et al, 2024) 7. averting the need for expensive grid upgrades (Norris et al, 2025) These benefits arise only because of Bitcoin mining's (flexible and predominantly sustainably based) energy use. Your article makes no mention of any of these benefits which are well cited in the field of Bitcoin and energy, and well known by anyone with a basic understanding of the fomain. False claim 3: the impact of paper money is actually insignificant in comparison to the environmental impact of Bitcoin mining. This claim is both unsubstantiated and factually incorrect. The traditional finance system not only uses 28-60 more energy (a multiple that will remain in place even as Bitcoin scales, source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4125499), but more importantly traditional banking uses only 40% sustainable energy to power its vast network of datacenters, buildings, vaults, armoured cars, trucks, bank branches, processing centers and call centers, and has significantly higher emission intensity than Bitcoin which is almost 60% powered by sustainable sources. In summary, Bitcoin is now widely regarded by the academic community, and the energy sector as an important component of green energy transition and methane mitigation. Overall, the article is well below the standard I would expect from a site that purports to advance science, from the non-evidence based assertion in the opening sentence onwards I would request a retraction of this article, and suggest that your authors make themselves aware of the large body of work that contradicts the perspective put forward in the article if you are writing about it in future. In the interests of being faithful to your mission, do better! Daniel Batten Environmentalist, Climatetech investor(Daniel Batten)