Well, if there were no actual numbers and we just told you that the vast majority of climate scientists accept AGW, you would probably reject what we said. If the split was 52/48 would it be a propaganda technique? How about 60/40? 80/20? At what percentage does it cease to be data and becomes propaganda instead?

The term "propaganda" is value-based. and implies that the data are false. Using the survey in an essay would make it a rhetorical technique--not propaganda. And the consensus is neither propaganda nor a technique--it's a consensus.'

EDIT: By the way, it's clear from the revision history that propagandists are trying to use this Wikipedia article as propaganda.

The thing is, if there are more than 3% of all publishing geophysicists who generally don't accept the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is affecting global climate, they sure don't make a lot of noise about it, considering the scope and importance of the problem and the economic and social effects of the proposed solutions. I would think that if a significant fraction of scientists didn't generally support the conclusions of the IPCC, we would not continually hear from the same climate skeptic "experts" over and over and over again. (This is especially true when it is so lucrative being a climate skeptic. For example, Richard Lindzen averaged about $100k per year research funding before he became a climate skeptic. Afterwards, it was around $1,000k, a factor of ten increase. He did pretty well for himself. And John Christy would be nothing more than a brief footnote in the annals of bad data analysis for screwing up the microwave sounder data for so many years if he were not also a climate skeptic.)

Actually, it is a very good propaganda technique. See how many suckers it conned? This 97% consensus fiasco is a formula written by Alinsky in his rules for radicals.

? Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Of course Alinsky was a well known Communist. He was more bent on gaining power that doing good to humanity or anything else. But his formula works and it is all propaganda.

It is simply that when you look at the research, conducted by people who research climate, published in science journals that publish scientific research -- you can't find more than 3% of those researchers who do not believe humanity is warming the troposphere via enhancing the greenhouse effect.

That there remains some great debate about that is myth, propagated by political lobbyists who do not want you to know how well established the theory is. Every measure, every polling, every journal shows that there are very few people who don't believe it. I'm not sure there are any who think human influence is 0%. The 3% are more like John Christy who believe that there must be some yet unfound, unknown natural cause that is responsible for at least 50% of the ongoing trend of 0.14 degrees per decade warming that he provides each month to NASA. At least Christy does not pretend that he is in the minority.

There is no yet known natural cause that fits the observations.

Christian Conservatives have been 'at war' with Science since the beginning of Modern Science.

Pawns of propaganda believe Rush Limbaugh and The Koch Bros are telling the truth and Neil deGrasse Tyson is a liar.