spindoc,

I'm having trouble with your "experts from both sides" equation.

We know there is overwhelming consensus in published "peer-reviewed" literature by scientists.

(Disregarding for the moment that "skeptics" have taken to challenging both peer-review" and the term "consensus" as part of their ongoing strategy to discredit a tried and true system)

"Peer-review" is the stable "commission of enquiry" which has delivered mankind its startling scientific advancement since the Enlightenment.

Again, your suggestion posits a level playing field between the scientists represented by the IPCC and others funded by and promoting fossil fuel/consumer interests.

I actually hadn't heard of Heartland re AGW until the mention above. So I googled it. This extract is from Wikipedia (OK I'm sceptical of that too, but references are given).

May 2012 billboard campaign

On May 4, 2012, the institute launched a digital billboard ad campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, (the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others), and asking the question, “I still believe in global warming, do you?”[30] The institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question. In a statement, the institute justified the billboards saying "the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen."[31] The billboard reportedly "unleashed a social media-fed campaign, including a petition from the advocacy group Forecast the Facts calling on Heartland’s corporate backers to immediately pull their funding," and prompted Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), to threaten to cancel his speech at the upcoming Heartland Institute Climate Change Conference.[32] Within 24 hours Heartland canceled the campaign, although its President refused to apologize for it.[nb 2] The advertising campaign led to the loss of substantial corporate funding,[33] the resignation of Institute board members, and the resignation of almost the entire Heartland Washington D.C. office, taking the Institute's biggest project (on insurance) with it.[34] Subsequent to their resignation, the staff of the former Heartland insurance project founded the R Street Institute.[35).

Could a Royal Commission help, do you think?

Poirot,

You seem to have listed lots of reasons “for not doing it” but no reasons for “actually doing it”?

All the points you raised are covered by this,

<< Each panel gets the right to challenge nominees for the opposing panel and expert witnesses. The grounds might be qualifications, experience or relevance. We could even waive “conflict of interest” issues? >>

So how about we solve your objections by adding “Only Peer Reviewed Submissions” and put back the “conflict of interest” caveat that you can use to remove submissions from vested interests?

How does that work for you

Cossomby,

Skepticism aside, poor old Heartland miscalculated terribly with that one....a desperate act which cost them many "donors".

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/09/heartland-institute-donors-lost-unabomber-ad

http://www.livescience.com/20107-heartland-climate-change-billboards.html

Here's an article by Naomi Klein covering the connection between the NIPCC and Heartland, the "climate debate" and more....

http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate

spindoc,

We don't "need" to do it...unless one is assuming at the outset that thousands upon thousands of scientists are caught up in a massive fraud and conspiracy.

These people do their work, They are trained to be skeptical. Their conclusions are made available for their peers to examine.

As I've mentioned, there is only one premise for touting a Royal Commission or any such investigation - and that is the premise that these thousands of scientist are dishonest and engaging in a sham.

I don't buy that.

just one of the many LIES*

least we forget
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus'
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming.

After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics.

At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

FOOL ME ONCE..SHAME ON ME
FOOL..ME TWICE..LICE ON YOU*

a pox on both thy houses..[lobbyists and warmists]

ITS THE DAMM LIES..
liars lie..

you who..have been decieved by professional spin
think..why youneed to believe the lie..

[is it that you got the free gifts?
and if...the lie gets revealed..you might feel guilt?

the real..liars dont feel guilt
if the facts speak for themselves..*present the fact..not the modeling bling..if the percentage..drop's..drop.,.the lies that were built on..them

[go figure..only thee truth will do
aand that keeps changing..as the spin gets ever more twisted]

its govt lobbby//wanting nice free govt cash
to give out a few light bulbs..bopught for double retail

or sell a few solar cells or sell govt a few wind turbines or get money for carbon SEQUESTRATION..[then 4 out of 5 expensive subsidized quangos..still go broke]

how many lies..make up.. the fraud

and still the guilt trip dont quit
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php