I remember considering importing something from Norway before standardisation of rates. As I recall, it would have ended up stuck at the post office before I paid up the extra VAT, so I never got round to buying one.
Sorry to shatter your world view of an united Europe, but Norway is not a member of the EU.
you do realize there is very little incentive for scientists to publish on climate change? if they took a job in the oil business they'd be doing "very well for themselves". follow the money, look at who stands to lose/gain by lying.
However, scientists have very high incentive for publishing things that actually get published in scientific journals, because it is very hard to earn a reputation otherwise. Unfortunately, scientific journals are not interested in publishing papers that are "boring", i.e. papers that fail to generate any "new" knowledge but just confirm and strengthen old theories that may not be compatible with today's narrative. However, these "boring" papers are not meaningless, their sheer number actually influences how credible a new "revolutionary" paper is, but without being published by these journals people just don't notice that they even exist. This is the confirmation bias.
Due to this, academic researchers tend to "tune" their statistical interpretation of the data towards the expected outcome, which became a serious problem within the last few decades, especially concerning medical and health topics. The statistical quality of scientific papers went totally bottom up because scientists were losing interest in boring facts. A friend of mine who is currently finishing his Master's degree in Psychology even told me that there is currently a mayor shift in methodology because the classic statistical methods produce too much false papers.
Therefore I suggest to take everything "revolutionary" proclaimed by scientific papers with a grain of salt, especially if the field of research still has a huge number of unknown variables. Instead, look for obvious mistakes in their statistical methodology first.
Peer review ain't what it used to be, either. There actually have been several published scientific papers that were utterly bullshit, because the authors intentionally made them up to demonstrate how toothless today's peer reviews are. There have been some troubling reports of FUD campaigns against perfectly neutral scientific papers in the US that didn't match the public narrative as well, leading to unheard of procedures like retroactively unpublishing papers and whole "revenge crusades" to get the responsible persons fired.
