Golden Mosquito LLC

Logo of the Golden Mosquito Blog featuring a light bulb with connecting nodes.

Blog

Explore our current themes

  • By Roy Eriksson, Golden Mosquito LLC

    For decades, buying a PC has meant buying Microsoft Windows — whether you wanted it or not. Retailers present Windows as the natural default, but the reality is far less neutral. Preinstalled Windows adds hidden costs, forces users into subscription ecosystems, and has caused repeated technical failures that many consumers never hear about before they buy.

    It is time to question why operating systems are treated as mandatory rather than optional.

    Windows Is Not Free — You Pay for It Every Time

    Every new PC with Windows includes a license fee baked into the price. On top of that, many core functions — especially Microsoft Word — now require a subscription. In the most common subscription tiers, Microsoft has removed the ability to refuse cloud storage, effectively pushing users into a storage model they did not choose.

    Meanwhile, fully capable alternatives exist:

    These tools cover the needs of most users without locking them into recurring payments.

    Windows Updates Have Broken Thousands of Computers

    Microsoft’s update history includes several serious incidents:

    • A well‑known Windows 10 update trapped thousands of PCs in an endless boot loop, with no universal fix provided.
    • Security features like BitLocker and TPM keys have rendered fully functional machines unusable after routine updates.
    • Users have reported Windows updates that silently uninstall programs — including OpenOffice — without warning.

    These are not edge cases. They are systemic issues that affect ordinary users who simply expected their computers to work.

    Retailers Rarely Offer Alternatives

    Despite all this, most retailers still refuse to offer:

    • PCs without Windows
    • PCs with Linux preinstalled
    • PCs with a free office suite ready to use

    This lack of choice is not technical — it is commercial. Retailers could easily offer Linux‑based systems, but they don’t, because the Windows‑bundled model has become an unquestioned habit.

    Consumers Deserve Real Choice

    An operating system should be a choice, not a compulsory purchase. Retailers should:

    • be transparent about the real cost of Windows
    • offer PCs without preinstalled operating systems
    • provide Linux‑based options for customers who want them
    • stop treating subscriptions as the default path for everyone

    Most people simply want a computer that works — without forced cloud storage, without subscription traps, and without updates that break their machines.

    It is time for the market to reflect that.

  • Diamonds placed on the Moon’s surface with Earth glowing in the background, alongside the Golden Mosquito LLC emblem
    FrykenDiamond™ – Patent‑pending system for transporting and placing cremation diamonds in space, on the Moon or Mars

    Lunar regolith is loose, abrasive and easily mobilized by landers and rover wheels.
    The FrykenDiamond™ concept uses a roller similar to an agricultural field‑roller, engineered specifically for low‑gravity environments:

    • Transport‑Optimized: The roller is manufactured as light as possible to minimize launch cost.
    • Locally Weighted: Once on the Moon, the roller is loaded with locally available mass such as stones, gravel, ice, water or other materials that provide real compaction weight.
    • Rover‑Towed: The roller is towed by a rover, enabling large‑area stabilization without importing heavy machinery.
    • Dust Reduction: Compacted surfaces reduce dust plumes and improve operational safety for astronauts, landers, equipment and allow the diamonds to be placed on the surface material.

    This approach avoids energy‑intensive methods and relies on simple mechanics and local resources.

    Ultra‑Low‑Mass Memorial Payloads

    The system also supports the placement of memorial diamonds made from biological carbon.
    These diamonds offer unique advantages for lunar transport:

    • Over 1,000 diamonds fit in one liter of cargo volume
    • Extremely low mass per unit
    • Negligible impact on mission payload budgets
    • No risk of biological contamination — unlike any other form of organic material

    This makes them ideal for rideshare missions, commercial landers and public‑engagement payload programs.

    Deployment Methods

    The concept includes several ways to place diamonds at designated resting‑places:

    1. Overpressure Ejection during transit or lunar orbit.
    2. Surface Placement via rover or astronaut EVA.
    3. Flip‑Maneuver Deployment:
      A controlled 180‑degree rotation and deceleration of a spacecraft, enabling accurate release onto a selected resting‑place.

    Public Online Registry of Resting‑Places

    A public, searchable online registry will list the individuals commemorated at each resting‑place.
    The focus is on people and stories, creating a permanent and accessible record for families and the public.

    Seeking Strategic Partnership

    Golden Mosquito LLC is seeking a national space agency or private aerospace company to acquire or co‑develop the system.

    “Our goal is to integrate this stabilization method and ultra‑low‑mass memorial payload into upcoming lunar missions,” says the inventor. “We welcome discussions on acquisition or partnership, ideally with a symbolic initial commitment fee and a royalty‑based structure for future deployments.”

    The FrykenDiamond™ concept offers both practical lunar infrastructure and a unique payload opportunity for commercial and governmental missions.

    A celestial scene featuring the moon and Earth in the background, with two gold wedding rings and a large diamond set on a lunar surface, accompanied by the text 'Fryken Diamond - Love Eternal, Set on the Moon.'

    🌐 External References on Lunar Surface Stabilization

    To provide broader scientific and engineering context for mechanical compaction of lunar regolith using lightweight rollers, the following authoritative resources offer relevant research and mission‑level insights:

    • NASA – In‑Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU)
      https://www.nasa.gov/isru/
      Research on using local lunar materials for construction, stabilization, and mission infrastructure.

  • Subject: FrykenScope – Geospatial Line‑of‑Sight Validation for Event Reconstruction

    Diagram of the FrykenScope™ system showing fixed and mobile sensors, data flow arrows, a communications network, and a central control unit for line of sight validation.
    FrykenScope™ — a geospatial system that validates sensor line of sight and supports technical event reconstruction.

    A technical description of FrykenScope, a geospatially driven method for validating sensor relevance and reconstructing events using topographic precision. The system integrates heterogeneous sensors and applies strict line‑of‑sight logic.

    System Description: FrykenScope
    System and method for event identification and reconstruction through coordinated data analysis and topographic precision.

    1. Executive Summary

    FrykenScope is an advanced technical platform designed to transform how crimes and incidents are investigated and reconstructed. By integrating data from a network of heterogeneous sensors—both fixed and mobile—the system enables a holistic view of an event (see FIG. 1 for system architecture).
    The core of the system lies in its unique capability for topographic analysis, ensuring that only relevant and legally permissible data collection occurs based on physical line‑of‑sight and geographic relevance.

    2. Unique Core Technology: Topographic Analysis

    The most distinguishing feature of FrykenScope is the integration of digital topographic maps to validate the relevance of sensors.

    • Line‑of‑sight analysis:
      The system analyzes topographic data (buildings, terrain, elevation differences) to determine whether a specific sensor actually had visual access to the event location. This is illustrated in FIG. 7, where the system automatically sorts sensors based on their visual availability (“List of Sensors” vs. “Extended Area”).
    • Dynamic zone definition:
      Authorities can define specific geographic coordinates and activate or retrieve data only within those boundaries during selected time intervals.
    • Georeferencing:
      Each data point is precisely linked to coordinates and timestamps, creating a legally robust chain of evidence for reconstruction.

    3. System Components and Functions

    FrykenScope aggregates information from a wide range of sources (FIG. 1) to create a complete picture of an event:

    • Heterogeneous sensors:
      The system handles video, audio, infrared, and advanced airborne particle sensors (e.g., scent sensors for narcotics or gunpowder residue).
    • Real‑time tracking and escape‑route analysis:
      The system can calculate escape routes by analyzing speed, direction, and movement patterns (FIG. 6). As shown in FIG. 6, the search area expands dynamically as the object moves away from the incident.
    • AI‑assisted identification:
      Artificial intelligence is used to identify license plates, faces, or objects in complex environments.

    4. Societal Benefit and Privacy Protection

    FrykenScope prioritizes precision over mass surveillance.
    Instead of continuous monitoring, the system focuses on identifying—either retrospectively or in response to specific alerts—exactly which sensors were relevant to an incident.
    In the user interface (FIG. 7), the operator can quickly filter relevant data, minimizing unnecessary data exposure and protecting the privacy of individuals not involved in the event.

    FrykenScope functions as a force multiplier for both national security (for example, mapping IRGC‑related logistics) and law enforcement. By leveraging sensors already present in the environment, the system creates a clear analytical path from incident to origin. Golden Mosquito LLC is based in Alaska, USA. Full technical documentation, including system drawings (FIG. 1–8), is available on the website: Golden Mosquito LLC.

    DRAWING Kanera övervakningDownload
  • A moose lying on the ground near a pond, while a pack of wolves approaches in a forested landscape with tall trees and grass.

    Feeding Predators – How We Can Reduce Damage to Moose, Deer, and Livestock

    Wolves and cougars create problems for some ranchers, while others want these predators fully protected. Frustration grows as illegal hunting increases, and for those living in affected areas the situation can feel unsustainable. But we can reduce the damage—without drastically changing predator numbers—by using the same method already applied to other wildlife: targeted feeding.

    Wolves and cougars are opportunists that conserve energy whenever possible. Research from Yellowstone shows that a wolf pack may rest for up to a full day after a large meal. During that time, they do not hunt elk, bison, or deer. At the same time, the method allows hunting to be directed at specific problem individuals—those that roam widely and therefore rarely visit feeding sites.

    Baiting can also reduce bear and wolverine predation on moose and reindeer calves, and targeted feeding during the breeding season can lessen the impact of coyotes and foxes on fawns and forest birds.

    It is well documented that predators sometimes attack even when they are not acutely hungry—for example, when prey appears unusually easy to catch. But leaving resting sites, actively searching for prey, and risking injury during an attack are all strongly tied to energy needs. This means that feeding sites should significantly reduce attack frequency, even if they do not eliminate it entirely.

    A detailed illustration of a sleeping boar in the foreground, with four wolves in the background walking through a grassy area surrounded by bare trees.

    We already do this for every other type of wildlife. Predators are essentially the only animals we don’t feed. We plant wildlife fields, provide supplemental feed for ungulates and eagles, place salt licks, and feed turkeys and songbirds. If we want to reduce damage to wildlife and livestock, the same logic must apply to large predators.

    One solution is to establish three to four feeding sites in each wolf territory, ideally moved a few hundred meters each time they are replenished. Suitable bait includes livestock carcasses unfit for human consumption, road‑killed animals, slaughter waste, or the millions of spent laying hens replaced each year—birds that today often cost money to dispose of. Automated feeders with specialized dog food can naturally be used as supplemental feed.

    Feeding sites would also benefit biodiversity. In today’s landscape, few large animals die naturally. A bait site therefore becomes an important resource for all predators in the area, as well as overwintering small birds.

    With feeding sites and trail cameras, we can identify individuals, control access to food and resting areas, and keep wolves well‑fed in remote forest locations—rather than having them move toward settlements, livestock, or strip the landscape of game. Wolf “comfort” can be increased by creating several suitable den sites near the feeding areas.

    Simply restricting legal hunting is not a sustainable solution, and it creates problems in Europe as well. In Norway, for example, ten people have been charged with organized wolf poaching in a case that also involves Swedish citizens. This shows that the current situation is not working—we need new, practical methods.

    We already feed deer and birds. Feed the predators too, and the problems for ranchers will decrease—and we will have more deer and moose even in these regions.

    Further Reading

    External Scientific Sources

  • Pulse fishing is not just about catching fish. It is about destroying the very foundation of marine ecosystems. When electric pulses are released into the water, they do not stop at stunning adult fish. They reach every living organism — from fragile coral polyps to microscopic plankton. Over time, this leads to ecosystem collapse and the creation of sterile, lifeless waters.

    Pulse Fishing Targets More Than Fish

    The tragedy of pulse fishing is that it kills or injures organisms that are never meant to be caught:

    • Fish eggs and larvae are destroyed before they can hatch.
    • Juvenile fish suffer spinal damage and internal bleeding.
    • Coral reefs are weakened, making them more vulnerable to disease and bleaching.
    • Plankton and microorganisms — the base of the food chain — are electrocuted.

    This means pulse fishing is not selective. It wipes out the building blocks of marine life.

    Sterile Oceans: The Hidden Consequence

    When eggs, larvae, and plankton die, the ocean loses its ability to regenerate. Coral reefs, once vibrant ecosystems, become barren skeletons. Fish populations collapse because there are no young fish to replace the old. What remains is a dead zone — a sterile environment where biodiversity has been erased.

    Pulse fishing does not just harvest fish. It sterilizes the ocean.

    Why This Matters Globally

    Sterile oceans are not a distant problem. They affect:

    • Local communities that depend on fishing for food and income.
    • Global food security, as fish stocks collapse.
    • Climate resilience, since coral reefs protect coastlines and store carbon.

    Ignoring pulse fishing means ignoring one of the greatest threats to marine biodiversity.

    The Silence of Environmental Organizations

    Many environmental NGOs focus on local, symbolic issues — plastic bags, nearby pollution, or minor campaigns. Meanwhile, pulse fishing continues to sterilize oceans across the Persian Gulf, Southeast Asia, and Africa. This silence is dangerous. By failing to address global threats, organizations allow ecosystems to collapse while donors are distracted by smaller, more visible problems.

    What Needs to Change

    Pulse fishing must be banned worldwide. International cooperation, stricter enforcement, and real investment in sustainable fishing are the only solutions. If we continue to ignore this destructive practice, oceans will become sterile, and the wilderness we depend on will vanish.

    Further Reading

    External Scientific Sources

  • People wading through a heavily polluted riverbank filled with plastic waste and debris, with a city skyline in the background.

    When Western audiences think about plastic pollution, the narrative often points inward: local consumption, recycling habits, or corporate responsibility in Europe and the United States. Yet the largest contributors to ocean plastic are often left out of the conversation. This silence creates an accountability gap that allows the worst polluters to continue unchecked.

    Why the Silence?

    • Political sensitivity: Criticizing countries like China, India, or Pakistan for their waste management failures can be politically uncomfortable.
    • Economic ties: Many NGOs and governments rely on cooperation with these nations for trade, climate agreements, or development projects.
    • Media focus: Western media prefers stories that resonate locally — banning straws in London or boycotting products in New York — rather than confronting the scale of pollution in Asia or Africa.

    The Real Numbers

    Research shows that just a few rivers — the Yangtze, Ganges, Indus, and Citarum — account for the majority of plastic entering the oceans. Yet these names rarely appear in Western environmental campaigns. Instead, the spotlight remains on symbolic issues that have little impact on global totals.

    The Cost of Avoidance

    By failing to hold the largest polluters accountable, environmental organizations risk losing credibility. Audiences are told that progress is being made, but the oceans continue to drown in plastic. This gap between perception and reality undermines trust and delays real solutions.

    Toward Honest Advocacy

    True environmental leadership requires naming the problem where it exists. That means acknowledging the rivers of trash in Asia and Africa, demanding international accountability, and investing in waste management where it matters most. Without this honesty, the accountability gap will remain wide open.

    A polluted river filled with garbage and debris, with smoke rising in the background and structures visible along the banks.

    Further Reading

    External Scientific Sources

  • Pulse fishing is one of the most destructive fishing methods in modern history. Unlike traditional nets or trawls, pulse fishing uses electric pulses to shock fish, paralyze them, and force them to the surface. While this may sound efficient, the hidden truth is that pulse fishing destroys entire ecosystems — not just the fish being caught.

    What is Pulse Fishing?

    Pulse fishing works by sending high‑voltage electrical currents into the water. Fish are stunned, making them easy to capture. But the electricity does not discriminate. It affects everything in its path:

    • Fish eggs and larvae
    • Juvenile fish
    • Plankton and microorganisms
    • Coral reefs and benthic life

    This means that pulse fishing doesn’t just harvest fish — it sterilizes the water column and the seabed.

    Why Pulse Fishing Destroys Ecosystems

    The danger of pulse fishing lies in its non‑selective impact. Scientific electrofishing in rivers uses controlled, low‑intensity pulses to temporarily stun fish for counting or tagging. Those fish recover. But commercial pulse fishing in oceans uses stronger, repeated pulses that:

    • Kill eggs and larvae before they hatch
    • Cause spinal injuries and internal bleeding in adult fish
    • Damage coral structures and kill small reef organisms
    • Leave areas barren, unable to regenerate

    Over time, this creates dead zones where biodiversity collapses.

    The Global Problem Ignored

    Environmental organizations often focus on local issues — plastic straws, nearby pollution, or symbolic campaigns. Meanwhile, global threats like pulse fishing continue largely unchecked. In regions such as the Persian Gulf, Southeast Asia, and parts of Africa, pulse fishing devastates ecosystems that directly affect global fish stocks and even local coastal communities.

    Ignoring these global problems while shouting about minor local issues is not just short‑sighted — it’s dangerous. Pulse fishing is a global environmental crisis that deserves far more attention than it currently receives.

    Why Environmental Groups Stay Silent

    Many environmental NGOs rely on donations and media attention. It is easier to campaign against visible, local issues than to tackle complex, global practices like pulse fishing. This leads to a “cry wolf” effect — constant warnings about small problems, while the real wolf (pulse fishing) destroys oceans unnoticed.

    What Must Be Done

    Pulse fishing should be treated as a crime against nature. International bans, stricter monitoring, and global cooperation are essential. If left unchecked, pulse fishing will sterilize oceans, collapse fish populations, and accelerate coral reef death.

    The future scarcity will be wilderness. Protecting our oceans from pulse fishing is one of the most urgent steps toward preserving that wilderness.

    Internal Links (Golden Mosquito)

    External Scientific & Investigative Sources on Pulse Fishing

    • ICES – Electric Pulse Trawling Reports
      https://www.ices.dk
      Scientific assessments of ecological impacts from pulse trawling.
    • Marine Stewardship Council – Position on Electric Fishing
      https://www.msc.org
      Policy statements and ecological concerns regarding pulse trawling.
    • Bloom Association – Investigations into Electric Fishing in Europe
      https://www.bloomassociation.org
      Detailed reports on ecosystem damage and regulatory failures.
    • European Parliament – Ban on Electric Pulse Fishing
      https://www.europarl.europa.eu
      Legislative documents and scientific background leading to the EU ban.
    • FAO Fisheries – Destructive Fishing Practices Overview
      https://www.fao.org
      Global analysis of harmful fishing methods, including electric gear.
    • ScienceDirect – Research on Electrofishing Impacts
      https://www.sciencedirect.com
      Peer‑reviewed studies on mortality, spinal injuries, and benthic damage.
    • NOAA Fisheries – Habitat Impacts of Fishing Gear
      https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov
      Data on how non‑selective gear types damage marine ecosystems.
  • A passionate activist wearing a red beanie and blue coat stands on a rocky beach, holding a megaphone in one hand and a sign that says 'BAN SINGLE-USE PLASTIC BAGS' in the other, expressing her commitment to environmental activism.

    Symbolic Victories

    • Plastic straws and bags: Banning them reduces a tiny fraction of plastic waste, but does not address the rivers of trash flowing into the oceans from Asia and Africa.
    • Local clean‑ups: Beach clean‑ups in Europe and the US are commendable, but they deal with symptoms, not causes.
    • Boycotts: Some activists choose to boycott American goods because they dislike certain companies or political figures. Yet these boycotts do little to reduce global plastic entering the oceans.

    The Bigger Picture

    While Western campaigns focus on small symbolic issues, the real crisis lies elsewhere. Rivers like the Indus, Ganges, Yangtze, and Citarum continue to pour millions of tons of plastic into the sea every year. Addressing these hotspots would have a far greater impact than banning straws in Paris or New York.

    Overlooked Contributions

    Ironically, some of the companies being boycotted in the West have contributed to solutions:

    • Electric cars: Tesla and other innovators have accelerated the shift away from fossil fuels.
    • Solar energy: Investments in solar panels and battery storage have expanded renewable energy worldwide.
    • Innovation in sustainability: These technologies matter in the fight against climate change, even if they are overshadowed by symbolic campaigns.

    The Distraction Effect

    The danger of symbolic activism is that it distracts from the real work. Western audiences are led to believe that banning straws equals saving the oceans, while the rivers of trash remain unaddressed. Until global attention shifts to the true sources of pollution, the crisis will continue.

    A person wading through a heavily polluted river filled with trash and plastic waste, with buildings in the background.

    Further Reading

    External Scientific Sources

    • UNEP – Global Environmental Assessments
      https://www.unep.org
      Policy outcomes, environmental performance, and global reports.
    • FAO – Land, Water, and Food‑System Data
      https://www.fao.org
      Soil, agriculture, and resource‑use datasets.

  • Map highlighting the major rivers contributing to plastic pollution in the ocean, including Indus River, Ganges River, Yangtze River, and Citarum River, with marked locations and icons representing plastic waste.

    When we talk about plastic pollution, the image that often comes to mind is a beach in Europe or the United States littered with bottles and bags. But the true hotspots of ocean plastic are far away from Western shores. They are rivers in Asia and Africa that carry unimaginable amounts of waste directly into the sea.

    The Top Contributors
    Studies consistently show that a handful of rivers are responsible for the majority of plastic entering the oceans. Among them:
    • Indus River (Pakistan): Flowing through densely populated regions with poor waste management, the Indus is one of the largest contributors of plastic to the Arabian Sea.
    • Ganges River (India): Sacred to millions, yet burdened with industrial and household waste, the Ganges channels vast amounts of plastic into the Bay of Bengal.
    • Yangtze River (China): With megacities along its banks, the Yangtze is a conveyor belt of plastic waste into the East China Sea.
    • Citarum River (Indonesia): Often described as the world’s most polluted river, the Citarum is a direct pipeline of trash into the Java Sea.
    • West African rivers: Smaller but significant contributors, especially where urban growth outpaces waste infrastructure.

    Why These Rivers Matter
    Unlike Western countries, where waste management systems capture most plastic before it reaches waterways, many of these regions lack adequate infrastructure. Open dumping is common, and rivers act as natural transport systems for waste. The result: millions of tons of plastic flow into the oceans every year from just a few sources.

    The Global Blind Spot
    Despite the overwhelming evidence, environmental campaigns in Europe and the US rarely highlight these rivers. Instead, the focus remains on local bans and symbolic actions. This creates a blind spot in public awareness: people believe progress is being made, while the true crisis continues unchecked.

    Toward Real Awareness
    If the world is serious about tackling plastic pollution, attention must shift to these hotspots. International cooperation, investment in waste management, and accountability for the largest polluters are essential. Without this, rivers of trash will keep flowing, and the oceans will keep drowning in plastic.

    A polluted river covered in plastic waste, including bottles and debris, with a bridge visible in the background surrounded by greenery.

    Further Reading

    External Scientific Sources

    • NASA Climate – Scientific climate data
      https://climate.nasa.gov
      Reliable satellite‑based climate observations and scientific explanations.
    • NOAA Climate Science – Atmospheric and ocean data
      https://www.climate.gov
      Peer‑reviewed climate indicators, temperature trends, and environmental datasets.
    • IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
      https://www.ipcc.ch
      Authoritative global assessments on climate science and long‑term environmental trends.

  • An illustration depicting a polluted shoreline littered with plastic waste, featuring a prominently displayed cup with a red straw and a 'BAN' symbol, signifying the contrast between symbolic anti-plastic campaigns and the reality of ocean pollution.

    When people in Europe and the United States talk about plastic pollution, the focus is often on symbolic campaigns: banning straws, charging for plastic bags, or boycotting certain products. These actions are presented as victories for the environment. But the truth is far more uncomfortable: most of the plastic in the ocean does not come from Europe or the US at all.

    The Real Source of Ocean Plastic

    Scientific studies show that the majority of plastic waste entering the oceans originates from a handful of rivers in Asia and Africa. Countries such as Pakistan, India, China, and Indonesia are among the largest contributors. These rivers function as open sewers, carrying millions of tons of plastic directly into the sea every year.

    By contrast, the contribution from Europe and the US is relatively small. Yet Western campaigns dominate the headlines, while the real hotspots remain largely ignored.

    The Western Distraction

    Environmental organizations in the West often highlight local symbolic issues because they are easy to communicate and emotionally charged. A ban on plastic straws feels like progress, but it barely scratches the surface of the global crisis.

    At the same time, some activists choose to boycott American products because they dislike certain political figures or companies. But this misses the bigger picture: while the US is far from perfect, American innovators have also contributed to solutions — from the electrification of cars to the spread of solar energy. These advances matter in the fight against climate change, even if they are rarely acknowledged in the same breath as criticism.

    The Illusion of Progress

    The danger is that Western audiences are lulled into believing that small symbolic victories equal real change. Meanwhile, rivers of trash continue to flow unchecked into the oceans. Unless the focus shifts to where the problem truly lies, plastic pollution will remain a global catastrophe.

    Further Reading

    • NASA Climate – Scientific climate data
      https://climate.nasa.gov
      Reliable satellite‑based climate observations and scientific explanations.
    • NOAA Climate Science – Atmospheric and ocean data
      https://www.climate.gov
      Peer‑reviewed climate indicators, temperature trends, and environmental datasets.
    • IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
      https://www.ipcc.ch
      The world’s most authoritative scientific assessments on climate change.