What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately?

Alarmist Andrew Dessler asks the question in a post here.

An email response from Marc Morano:

[Regarding] Andrew Dessler’s latest article on ‘group think.’ Dessler fails to realize that the overwhelming majority of scientists who are members of these groups are probably not aware of any such statements to begin with. Any attempt to draft a skeptical statement and go against the politically favored ‘consensus’ of a ‘climate crisis’ would face organized opposition from entrenched vocal alarmists.

In other words, if skeptics try to get their science group statement to go against the UN IPCC mold, they would face immediate and massive organized protests from the “leadership.” If AGW believers draft a statement promoting IPCC view, skeptics would most likely not be aware of it and scattered. Believe it or not, skeptics are not well organized; I found this out compiling the Senate almost 500 scientist report. The believers in AGW are organized and very well financed. Dessler also conveniently forgets to note the difficulties the IPCC has had in reaching their ‘consensus’ with multiple resignations and accusations of massive bias. (Chris Lansea, Paul Reiter, etc.) Thus, Dessler’s argument fails on its face.