Claim: The claim that 2.2 conventional jobs are destroyed   for  every new job created in the alternative energy industry is based on a study which relies on incorrect numbers, cherrypicked dates, faulty theory, flawed methodology, and is disproven by real-world examples.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: However, reassessments found the study to have flawed methodology.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: "Vitalists claim to be scientific, but in fact they reject the scientific method with its basic postulates of cause and effect and of provability.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: [clarification needed] Solar jobs have more than doubled in the United States over the last decade growing 153% since 2010 to 242,343 workers directly employed by the industry.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Various academic studies have given alternative results.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: In a recent DICE model, DICE-2013R Model, the social cost of carbon is estimated based on the following alternative scenarios: (1) a baseline scenario, when climate change policies have not changed since 2010, (2) an optimal scenario, when climate change policies are optimal (fully implemented and followed), (3) when the optimal scenario does not exceed 2oC limit after 1900 data, (4) when the 2oC limit is an average and not the optimum, (5) when a near-zero (low) discount rate of 0.1% is used (as assumed in the Stern Review), (6) when a near-zero discount rate is also used but with calibrated interest rates, and (7) when a high discount rate of 3.5% is used.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: The Climate Feedback reviewers come to the conclusion that in one case Lomborg "practices cherry-picking", in a second case he "had reached his conclusions through cherry-picking from a small subset of the evidence, misrepresenting the results of existing studies, and relying on flawed reasoning", in a third case "[his] article [is in] blatant disagreement with available scientific evidence, while the author does not offer adequate evidence to support his statements", and, in a fourth case, "The author, Bjorn Lomborg, cherry-picks this specific piece of research and uses it in support of a broad argument against the value of climate policy.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Speaking of the numerous assumptions and therefore wide results returned by authors of previous individual studies, the Warner and Heath Yale paper states: "the difference between nuclear power life cycle GHG emissions constructed in an electric system dominated by nuclear (or renewables) and a system dominated by coal can be fairly large (in the range of 4 to 22 g -eq/kWh compared to 30 to 110 g -eq/kWh, respectively)".

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Another impact of a phase-out of fossil fuels is in the employment.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: There can be no reasonable doubt that in several major British industries members of the Communist Party and other left wing organisations exert substantial influence in provoking and exacerbating conflict... Any serious study of the available evidence does more than indicate that a deliberate effort of considerable magnitude is being staged to disrupt industry for political ends ; it shows that growing extremist organisations exist in some British Trade Unions capable of exerting influence wholly disproportionate to the numbers involved.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: This view contradicts the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change.