The agreement entered into force on 7 August 2007 for the first time for five years. It has been extended twice, the last time in 2017, for an additional period of 5 years. (b) `information` means scientific or technical data, results or methods of research and development resulting from joint research, as well as any other data related to cooperation activities; “Based on extensive scientific data, it is very likely that human activity, especially greenhouse gas emissions, is the main cause of the warming observed since the mid-twentieth century. There is no other explanation that is supported by convincing evidence. (2019)5 Nevertheless, general scientific consensus is an approach that is often referred to when it comes to issues that can be the subject of scientific methodology. While the consensus opinion of the Community is not always easy to identify or correct due to the paradigm shift, the standards and advantages of the scientific method in general have led scientists to agree, to some extent, on a general body of facts explained by scientific theory, while rejecting certain ideas, which go against this awareness. The concept of scientific consensus is very important for scientific pedagogy, the evaluation of new ideas and the support of research. It is sometimes argued that within the scientific community, there is a bias in relation to new ideas. Protoscience, marginal science, and pseudoscience were topics that discussed boundary problems. In response, some non-consensual organizations, not research institutes, claim to spend a lot of time and money to put ideas into challenging ideas that run counter to general convergence on a particular topic.
(b) This Agreement shall be concluded initially for a period of five years. Subject to review by the Parties during the last year of each consecutive period, the Agreement may subsequently be extended for a further period of five years by mutual written consent between the Contracting Parties. In public policy debates, the claim that there is a consensus of scientists in a given field is often used as an argument for the validity of a theory and as support for an approach of those who can benefit from a policy based on that consensus. Similarly, arguments for a lack of scientific consensus are often encouraged by parties who may benefit from more ambiguous policy. [Citation required] The scientific community is a diverse network of scientists who interact. It brings together many “sub-communities” working in specific scientific fields and within certain institutions; Interdisciplinary and inter-institutional activities are also important. Objectivity is achieved by the scientific method. Peer review, through discussion and debate in journals and conferences, supports this objectivity by maintaining the quality of research methodology and the interpretation of results.
 Unlike in previous centuries, when the community of scientists was all members of less learned societies and similar institutions, today there are no singular entities or individuals that can be said to speak for all sciences or scientists. This is partly due to the specialized training that most scientists receive in very few fields. As a result, many would lack expertise in all other areas of science. For example, due to the increasing complexity of information and the specialization of scientists, most cutting-edge research today is conducted by well-funded groups of scientists and not by individuals.  However, there are still several societies and academies in many countries that help consolidate certain opinions and research in order to guide public debate on publicly funded policy and research issues. . . .