To be clear on this, you are of the opinion that membership in a political party and memebership in a scientific society are governed by the same principles?
More to the point that if you want to be associated with a group and have their "blessing", don't be surprised if you are asked to conform to their standards. If you are uncomfortable with their standards, seek a different affiliation.
I'm not a fan of AGW, as you'll see if you read my comments in other threads, but one thing Dr. Cullen is correct about is this: If you claim to be an expert on Meteorology, then you ought to be up to date on the Global Warming Debate.
I'm currently a member of the American Mathematical Society and the Mathematical Association of America, two of the professional organizations of my profession. They do not have high certification requirements, but if they required, say, basic proficiency in the Intuitionalist vs. Axiomatic approaches, I'd be obliged to pay attention if I wanted to continue my affiliation with them. I'd still have a right to disagree with one side or the other, but it would be expected that my reasoning be on an informed, mathematical, basis.
Does that make sense?
Yes it does.
My understanding of Math ends right about where the Tax Code begins, so you have my unbridled respect. Math has certainty. I think from what you write that in your affiliations, adherance to the methods is more important than adherance to conclusions. That is to say, if a conclusion departs from mathematical logic, like Quantum vs. Newtonian physics, the conclusion is to be examined as well as the methods to determine accuaracy.
Accuracy is the goal and will sweep aside any conclusion and/or method that does not produce or increase accuracy. Is this true?
AGW science does not seem to follow this paradigm. The conclusion that CO2 is the cause of warming is the Truth and any logic or data subordinates to this Truth. In this way, AGW seems akin to Creationism. As long as there is one Truth in any debate that cannot be challenged and at the same time cannot be proven, it is something other than science.
If the AWS or Metrorlogical Societies demand a buy in on AGW, that seems to reach beyond the scope of their "science". Maybe like demanding that a student driver endorse or reject techniques to pilot the space shuttle.