LulaMay17 you need to do better than that if you're going to claim something is "fact."
First, none of the citations actually lead to anything - they lead to a deleted Wikipedia page. So it's just an unsourced, uncited list of random names on some random blog.
Second, climate change conspiracy theorists have a bad habit of latching onto the tiniest little thing and quoting it out of context to make it falsely appear that someone agrees with them. Some of the names on the list have stated on the record that they do believe in climate change, and are angry that their research is being abused and mis-quoted to imply support for an anti-science agenda.
Third, some of the "scientists" on the list do not work in a field that's even tangentially related to climate change. The list includes a economist, four politicians, and the chief executive of an energy company. Hardly people who are qualified or unbiased to give expert opinions on climate change.
Fourth have you actually read the list you linked to? The first section is "scientists who have argued global warming is primarily caused by natural causes" - so not scientists arguing that human-caused climate change isn't real, only that human action is one of the causes, not the primary causes.
The second section is "scientists who have questioned the accuracy of IPCC model" - not a word about climate change not being real, simply the accuracy of one specific model.
The third and fourth sections are scientists who have basically said "I don't know, needs more data" or "climate change is real but might not be that bad." Again, there's a big difference between "needs more data" and "climate change doesn't exist."
Trying researching further than the BBC.
I did a PhD, so I think I'm good, thanks. And I've never used the BBC for research for anything.