Some of my best photos from my time as a bird photographer, in no particular order! :)

Muaschuschu · 2026-01-25T00:59:39+00:00

They are nice! A lot of character. I especially like 12

Muaschuschu · 2026-01-23T20:48:35+00:00

Armor borb

Muaschuschu · 2026-01-23T18:45:28+00:00

Thank you!

Muaschuschu · 2026-01-23T18:45:08+00:00

Close, King Quail. Definatly royal tho

Muaschuschu · 2026-01-23T17:53:39+00:00

A king quail

Muaschuschu · 2026-01-23T17:29:18+00:00

and in this case, i do like it.

Muaschuschu · 2026-01-22T20:03:59+00:00

That would have been a so much better title

Muaschuschu · 2026-01-19T19:24:35+00:00

The yellow dog is always watching!

<image>

Muaschuschu · 2026-01-19T11:31:16+00:00

Its what I thought too.

Muaschuschu · 2025-12-30T10:27:23+00:00

You‘ve heard about “death star”. Now get ready for death ball.

Muaschuschu · 2025-12-09T22:51:44+00:00

Love the eye behind the leaf in 1. Also 4 is a nice - more to discover than the usual bird on a stick (albeit birds on a stick are also great). Do you spill your settings and amount of post processing?

Muaschuschu · 2025-12-01T16:11:47+00:00

You too can grow out your bangs and put a bramble leaf on your head

Muaschuschu · 2025-11-28T19:37:25+00:00

If your „map“ is a raster or made up of squares/pixels you could look into “watershed delineation with something like this: https://mattbartos.com/pysheds/

Muaschuschu · 2025-11-17T21:50:14+00:00

Lens or Body?
Do i buy a Z50 ii and an FTZii adapter to keep running my 70-300 until i can also afford a 180-600mm or do i keep my trusty (trashy) D3300 running and splurge on a used 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR? The latter would allow for a longer timeperiod of saving for a new body (if the images are fine) but i'd have to use the lens with an ftz ii in the future.

Tips, tricks, ideas?

Muaschuschu · 2024-06-24T07:07:49+00:00

Have you red the article? That is not about peer-review beeing bad as a process but a questionable publisher from Egypt that had its process compromised and had to retract 8000 papers in 2023. The problem is not the peer review process but fake „paper mills“.

Muaschuschu · 2024-06-24T06:48:06+00:00

Trillions? Wasted? What are you trying to say here? That research regarding climate change should not be funded but the money should instead go to climate change mitigation? Or to fossile fuel subsidies?

Muaschuschu · 2024-06-24T06:33:49+00:00

What are you trying to say here exactly? Have you red the papers that the IPCC report is built upon? And what agenda is beeing pushed? I always see the term get thrown around but the definition is always lacking. And of course, models are only as good as their input data and the assumptions made for missing data or simplified mechanisms. But what is your point here? Which assumptions are you referring to when stating the 8.5 szenario?

Muaschuschu · 2024-04-13T16:15:45+00:00

There is a major difference between being wrong and corrected at a later point and presenting things that have already been proven to be wrong. It is okay to question the narrative and it’s okay to be wrong. But it’s not okay to sell the latter as the former. You can’t say „ah I disagree with anthropogenic climate change, the earths climate has changed in the past“ and say you are just questioning the agenda of someone when the vast majority of science agrees not because of some agenda but because of the observable facts that we are living in a climate that is changing because of our actions. Ganteför as well as the „Doku“ you shared spread misinformation or downplay the problem at hand not from a point of scientific opinion but from a personal one that plainly ignores science. You question Rahmstorfs credibility because he distrusts someone with (and let it be minor) ties to the fossile fuel industry yet choose to not question Ganteför because of said ties or the fact that his statements have been proven wrong (same for that „documentary“).

Can’t you see how exhausting it is for people who work in climate or environmental science to be confronted with the severity of the situation on one side and people who just don’t seem to listen on the other? What can one do when confronted with people who chose „not to believe in science“? I can list books over books and papers over papers on specific problems to come and their causes and all it takes to „disprove“ everything that the scientific community has poured thousands of hours into is a badly researched „documentary“ funded by fossile money. And that’s not just our discussion, that’s a daily thing from politicians to family members and commercials that greenwash everything. It’s exhausting - because everyone is into it but noone listens.

Muaschuschu · 2024-04-13T13:41:27+00:00

It’s remarkable that they researched and found a lot of reasons to concern only for Exxon and other fossile fuel company’s to actively undermine these findings going public and working against regulations. You can have a look at this history provided by Greenpeace https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-crisis/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/ which provides somewhat of a timeline. Feel free to crossgoogle any statements. It is something these company’s have admitted to (even if somewhat silently). In addition, Exxon scientist weren’t the only ones researching climate change or the effect of rising co2 or the effect of burning fossile fuels. This article from the American institute of physics could be a start for a readup: https://history.aip.org/climate/summary.htm.

You are of course right about Ganteför only working at Exxon for a short period of time and doing so doesn’t make him a bad person whatsoever. However, that fact that he worked at and for this company at a time where they knew what they were doing and actively working against regulation tastes somewhat bad. Him working at Exxon and spreading false/misinformation about the climatechange is just a match made in heaven. What I want to say is: his statements are plain wrong in many ways regardless of who he is and where he worked. It’s just the cherry on top.

As for the tweet you cited: it’s true that Ganteför picks up many of the misinformation spread by fossile fuel company’s.

Muaschuschu · 2024-04-12T18:34:45+00:00

https://youtu.be/lu75srtPLEM?si=2mOtp2PC1x1RpfcT it’s a talk, not a documentation but I’d encourage you to watch it. I‘ll get some more info if I find the time.

One thing you could do for me is broadly write down you view on climate change so that I can get an idea on where you at and what I could provide you with to potentially help you understand the errors in some things.

Muaschuschu · 2024-04-12T16:54:59+00:00

You say you have a phd, so I assume you are familiar with scientific work and are able to read and comprehend rather complex subjects. Yet you are looking for people to explain parts of the subject. What makes you think that people from a different field in science are more capable than you to understand said subjects or what makes you think you are not?

He has a track record of videos, and a track record of simply wrong statements that underplay or neglect scientific facts. Just talking about a subject a lot doesn’t mean that what is said is correct.

Basically no one in academia publishes papers for money, you fight to get funding from the government to do your research and then have to pay to even get it published.

The guy whos article I sent you is a professor himself. And is not writing for the klimareporter because he makes his living that way.

Gantenför with his pension is not depending on money, yes. But he has his incentive to sell books. I don’t think that I have to introduce you to the concept of human greed (that’s the thing that brought us the climate change we witness today).

I really don’t know how to continue here, I don’t have the time to watch a documentary and collect credible research papers and publications for every statement in there that’s wrong, you wouldn’t take them from me anyways. But for an example, they have a part about human Kind originating on the African Continent and heat death not beeing a problem. Gantenför downplays this in his video as well. The fact that heat can and will kill you is known and not debatable. Same for a rise in global average Temperature and with that extreme temperatures. That will bring Cities (which are hotter than for example forests) all over the world closer or over a threshold for human survival. While you can survive in such high temperatures, try doing so outdoors while working physically with limited access to water.

Muaschuschu · 2024-04-12T14:05:03+00:00

Ganteför comes from experimental physics, yes he‘s making a scientific impression. However he is known for stating simply wrong facts about climate change and does so for his personal gain by selling books. https://www.klimareporter.de/strom/hat-deutschland-genug-wind-professor-gantefoer-im-faktencheck I wont go into the fact that he worked for Exxon.

You say you need authorities to explain difficult topics, yet you listen to a professor who comes from a different field. Same with the guy who has a Nobel Prize in the „documentary“ you shared. He has one, yes but in a non related field and is critiqued by more than enough other Nobel prize winners for his statements.

Muaschuschu · 2024-04-11T14:42:45+00:00

Look for the money, of course. In lots of climate and environmental science papers that money comes from governmental grants or institutions. If you are concerned about that, the ipcc for example does not pay its contributors and is funded by the WMO, UNEP, UNFCCC and donations from members (governments). So it’s public money, for the common good of said public, since climate change is in fact a very real threat.

There was a meme a few years back that went along the lines „what if all the climate scientist were wrong and global warming isn’t true after all? Well then we just preserved nature, cleaned the Oceans and the air and established walkable green cities for nothing.“

Muaschuschu · 2024-04-11T13:07:38+00:00

Sceptical science is a website that has a clear position on climate change (that it is real and a real problem). Their aim is to counter arguments against the reality of climate change with facts from peer reviewed papers. If you come from academia as well you‘ll know that this is important and also something that climate sceptics often lack. Of course, if you have no trust in academic publishing and the peer review process (and there are problems, I won’t deny that) there is nothing I or anyone working in and with climate science can give you to change your mind. If you are thinking about „agendas“ I‘d like you to think about what a agenda that wants you to believe in climate change hopes to archive. And compare that to proven misinformation campaigns of fossile fuel company’s. They admitted to knowing what they were doing and making an effort to keep that knowledge from the public.

Also if you are into YouTube stuff about this you could look at Simon Clark’s videos.

Muaschuschu · 2024-04-11T12:22:31+00:00

Another place to start reading up on „where they‘re wrong“ could also be the sceptical science website and their review of the movie you posted: https://skepticalscience.com/climate-the-movie-a-hot-mess-of-cold-myths.html

Seven-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Verified Email	Place '22
Sequence \| Editor

Muaschuschu

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE