There's some muddled thinking going on there. The source doesn't make the argument that Bitcoin isn't energy intensive. If that's an issue for you, you should re-evaluate your views on Bitcoin, but denying it doesn't change the fact.

Otherwise we're just arguing that "water isn't wet" and what the definition of "is" is.

I'm perplexed. I don't think we're looking at the same content. Perhaps you haven't read the entire thread but just the first 6 tweets?