5.1 Neither the licensee nor the authorized user can, unless authorized by the publisher`s written permission or by a separate agreement signed by both parties: certain areas, such as the authorisation of certain technologies for public consumption, can have significant and far-reaching political, economic and human repercussions if things go wrong with scientists` predictions. However, to the extent that the policy is expected to reflect, in a given area, competent and relevant data and well-accepted models of observable interseating relationships, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on as much of what can legitimately be called “scientific consensus” in policy development and implementation. , at least in situations. where the need for political intervention is imperative. While science cannot provide an “absolute truth” (or even its addition to “absolute error”), its usefulness is linked to the ability to steer politics towards a high public good and far from public damage. From this point of view, the requirement that the policy be based solely on “scientific truth”, which has proven to be the “scientific truth”, would be a recipe for political paralysis and would, in practice, amount to engaging in the acceptance of all the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with political inaction.  Article 17 provides that the parties can continue to improve and facilitate cooperation with non-contracting parties in the field of scientific research in the Arctic, and this provision for cooperation with the parties is not legally binding on the parties. This is important because Arctic science is global and has always been conducted between the Arctic and non-Arctic states.9 This provision has been criticized in other scientific work, such as Shibata and Raita (158-162) and Liu (55), for the eventual creation of a two-tier system in the Arctic. This risks hindering, rather than encouraging, international cooperation in the field of science. The scientific consensus on the causes of global warming, for example, is that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is mainly due to human greenhouse gas emissions.    Science historian Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science, which reported that an overview of summaries of 928 scientific papers published between 1993 and 2003 did not rehabilitate those that explicitly disagreed with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.  In an editorial in The Washington Post, Oreskes stated that those who were opposed to these scientific discoveries reinforce the normal extent of scientific uncertainty about any fact in an appearance of major scientific disagreement or lack of scientific consensus.
 Oreskes` results have been replicated by other methods that do not need to be interpreted.  Article 15 calls on states to resolve disputes through direct negotiations.