Where would you draw the line?
For example, would you put the president of company that sells a purported homeopathic measles cure (yes, that exists) on a medical ethics board in the name of finding common ground?
I wouldn't, because they either (1) know that they are selling a product that is nothing more than a placebo, which they lie about to ignorant people, and which will likely lead to serious harm for many of those people (often children), but value their income more than that, or (2) they actually believe that it works. The former is disqualifying because it calls into question their own ethics, and the later because it calls into question their ability to understand objective evidence and draw sound inferences from it.
The Heritage Foundation publishes things like this [1]:
> The current average world temperature is about 58 degrees. The true believers in climate change are predicting global catastrophe if that temperature rises by a worst-case estimate of 7 degrees Fahrenheit. That would bring the world average temperature to about 65 degrees.
> Dubai, today, is doing quite well at an average temperature 35 degrees higher.
The gist of the article is that people can handle heat in Dubai through the use of air conditioning in their cars and buildings, which shows that maybe if we just go all in for cheap fossil fuel based energy we'll be able to handle the paltry little worst case 7 degrees that we might get if climate change turns out to be real.
I find it extremely hard to believe that they don't know that this and most of their other material on climate change is scientifically wrong, and so I'd rule out putting their president on an ethics board because they are not an ethical organization.
You want some conservative viewpoints to find common ground on your board? There are conservatives who have not embraced scientific quackery. E.g., [2]. Pick from them.
[1] https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/how-fossil-f...
[2] https://www.clcouncil.org/plan-co-authors/