NO such thing as Climate Change?, page-15807

Then why not actually quote from the original source instead of a well-known crank site?

But hey, seeing as you've now revealed the true source of the document...

https://www.verificat.cat/en/who-is...t-stating-that-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

Finally, Clintel, which describes itself as “an independent foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy”, has proven ties to the Forum for Democracy (FVD), a Dutch nationalist party – the ninth most powerful in the House of Representatives, with 5 of the 150 representatives – given that its leader, who has denied or relativised climate change on various occasions, has cited documents from this organisation as a valid source on the subject, according to an investigation carried out by Dutch media outlets.
Its co-founders and ambassadors are also linked to groups such as the Heartland Institute, which in turn denies that there is any evidence of global warming.

The vast majority of the self-described experts who signed the document are professionals in various branches of engineering, geology and the business world, and, what’s more, many of them are retired. In other words, the document is signed by people who, judging by their supposed education, have not completed the studies necessary for properly evaluating climate analyses.
It is true that some of the signatories have an impressive track record and relevance, such as Ivar Giaever, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics with another scientist in 1973 (and who, like him, is a Clintel ambassador). They were awarded the prize for their discoveries regarding tunnelling phenomena in superconductors – i.e. in a field that has nothing to do with climate science. What’s more, their statements denying global warming have been disproven by fact-checking agencies that belong to the International Fact-Checking Network such as EFE Verifica, Snopes and Verificat.
In addition, there are millions of scientists in the world: 1,100 is an irrelevant proportion of them and it is not a representative sample of the scientific community’s opinion. What’s more, the way they defend this idea is by citing a signed document. Typically, however, in the scientific and academic world, when it comes to defending certain ideas, it is done by publishing analyses based on scientific studies that are carried out with a standard, very concrete methodology, and are also published in scientific journals and that, before being published, are subjected to a series of filters or reviews. An unreviewed document that does not have references to studies backing its arguments and that has not even been published in a scientific review lacks any sort of credibility in the academic field.

Etc.etc.- looks like you did absolutely no research- I'm not surprised. Maybe if you actually had better sources of information you wouldn't come off looking like an ignorant hillbilly.
There are, in fact, studies with a more representative sample of the consensus on climate change and its anthropogenic origin: an article published in 2021 points out, after analysing more than 90,000 studies on climate change, that 99% of climate experts agreed that burning fossil fuels like carbon, gas and petroleum is the cause of the warming of the planet and that we need to realise that the climate will be an increasingly extreme.