Right now the world's top politicians have gathered in Paris to discuss the climate on planet Earth. People ask me: What do you think about the situation as an astrologer? My answer is that I don't think anything about the climate as an astrologer - but as a private person, I think that the last fool hasn't been born yet.

They say that the temperature is increasing on planet Earth, and they say that man is to blame for it. They say that the production of CO2 causes the climate to change. They say that the climate is the hottest ever since man started to measure and log the temperature on planet Earth, i.e. since the 1830's. They also say that the climate changes will cause havoc in the shape of flooding, starvation and more refugees coming to our part of the world.

But according to ice core drillings from Greenland the climate on the Northern hemisphere has been 2-3 degrees (Celsius) hotter than today several times in history - without causing the end of the world (see the below illustration). Please notice that here we are talking about a much larger time perspective than since the 1830's. And notice that these climate changes were not caused by an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Actually there is no mechamism between the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and the increase of temperature on planet Earth at all - it's a theory and a postulate, and it has never been supported scientifically.

When the climate changes on planet Earth two other explanations exist, even though they are ignored and suppressed:

  • Our solar system moves through the universe with a high speed. Sometimes it is in an area with a lot of dust, which causes the climate on planet Earth to cool down. At other times the solar system is in an area with less dust, which causes the climate on planet Earth to become more hot.
  • The activity in the Sun varies; sometimes the Sun burns a lot of energy thereby causing the climate on planet Earth to become more hot, at other times the energy level in the Sun is low, thereby causing the climate on planet Earth to become more cold.

The idea that man can change the climate on planet Earth to change is a religious faith, which unfortunately has attracted many followers - and nobody seems to question it. I don't understand why, but one of my friends have come up with the following explanation:

  • Because we have invented modern technology like the computer and the smart phone, we tend to believe that we can control nature. But the future will show that it is just another case of hybris and nemesis - like when a flee believes it can control the dog.
  • Politicians hate to feel powerless - it's their job to give an impression that they are in control, that something can be done to change status quo.
  • Science has been corrupted by politics and money. If you don't join the hysterical climate fools, you don't have a career in science. In most of the science conducted in this area the conclusion is given in advance.
  • For mysterious reasons some people have a need to feel guilty about being human beings - just like the flagellants in medieval times. The flagellants believed that by lashing themselves they could stop the Black Death from spreading.
  • Most people are followers. Science has shown that if 5% of a population has a strong religious faith, they are capable of controlling the majority.

I am not worried about the climate, and any money invested in so-called climate technology are wasted. The money should instead be spent on feeding the starving, healing the sick, housing the homeless and teaching the illiterate. Apart from that I recommend my clients to enjoy life.


While astrology and astrologers have been routinely attacked and criticized by members of the established scientific institutions the previous years, the same has not happened to psychology and psychiatry, probably because they are generally viewed as more "respectable" disciplines. This situation has changed this autumn, when Jupiter entered Virgo and Saturn entered Sagittarius, from where they challenge Pisces, representing psychology and psychiatry. Jupiter came from Leo, and Saturn came from Scorpio, from where they had challenged Aquarius, which represents (among other things) astrology. Jupiter stays in a sign for 11 months on average, while Saturn stays in sign approximately 2.5 years. Jupiter and Saturn are the giants in our solar system, and they have great influence on the matters, which are under debate at any given moment.

At The Guardian you can read an article about how the medical company SmithKline Beecham is responsible for several suicides among young people. The company produces and sells the antidepressant drug Seroxat (also known as Paroxetine), which according to tests do not benefit young people with depressions, but instead encourages suicide thoughts. According to Danish professor Peter Gøtzsche in a Danish article in MetroXpress the drug has the same negative effect on adults. The scandal is that SmithKline Beecham has known about the drug's negative potential since 2001 - and nevertheless continued to market and sell it.

At Alternet you can read about "10 of the Worst Abuses of the Psychiatric and Psychological Professions in American History". The 10 headlines are:

  1. Project MKUltra, in which CIA experimented with using drugs to break down individuals - with the collaboration of psychologers and psychiatrists.
  2. American Psychological Association Assistance in Interrogation/Torture.
  3. Pathologizing Homosexuality and Disempowering Gay Americans
  4. Enabling Genocide of Indigenous Americans
  5. Enabling Racism and Subjugation of African American
  6. Subverting U.S. Soldiers’ Resistance to the Military-Industrial Complex
  7. Enabling Authoritarian Standard Schooling
  8. Depoliticizing Normal Reactions to Dehumanizing Employment
  9. Medicating Noncompliance and Marginalizing Anti-Authoritarians
  10. Controlling Uncared about and Discarded Populations

Of course you can also find dramatized examples of abuse of psychology and psychiatry, like the movie "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" from 1975 with Jack Nicholson as the protagonist.

Why are psychology and psychiatry abused? They were meant to be healing, right? To me the explanation is easy to see: Psychology and psychiatry are based in a rational, scientific and materialistic paradigm, according to which the soul doesn't exist except as a biproduct of the body's chemistry. Astrology is - according to Richard Tarnas - based in "romantic" paradigm, in which the soul exists as an independent entity, which can survive the body's death. According to this paradigm it does not make sense to treat a disorder in the soul with chemistry or surgery. Other remedies are needed here, like meditation, hypnosis or healing. I don't recommend going back to exorcism, but I know for certain that sending out positive thoughts or giving love while being in a dialogue with the patient do have a beneficial effect on him / her.


Astrologer Robert Curry's main page is called Why it is no longer acceptable to say astrology is rubbish on a scientific basis, and on this page you can find the following quote: "Astrology goes far beyond the popularised Sun-Sign columns published in newspapers and magazines."

If that is true, then why do astrologers write the Sun-Sign columns? I think Robert Curry and his fellow astrologers owe the public an explanation for this contradiction in the astrological profession. There is a moral / ethical issue at stake here: If sun sign columns are rubbish, then follows logically that any astrologer, who produces Sun Sign columns, is a scammer and a fraudster. Or else there is a reasonable explanation, which hasn't yet been articulated.

However, the problem remains: How can you expect scientists or skeptics to take astrology seriously, as long as astrology also contains popular sun sign columns? The problem for most astrologers is of course that the sun sign columns constitute an important part of their financial income. They couldn't do without it. Somehow Robert Curry's struggle is empty, as long as he hasn't solved this dilemma.

Of course one solution would be to discriminate between pop-astrologers (the ones who author sun sign columns) and more serious astrologers, but the question is then how to define the "serious" astrologers. Michel Gauquelin had a very strict definition, which excluded any kind of "fortune telling", the psychologically oriented astrologers have another definition, and the people behind the magazine Correlation have a third definition. And as long as the astrologers cannot even agree on such a definition among themselves, it is hard to expect any kind of recognition of astrology from the rest of the world.

A simple solution to this problem is at hand: Any part of astrology, which fulfils Karl Popper’s criterion of falsifiability, can and shall be regarded as science:

"A falsifiable theory is one that makes a specific prediction about what results are supposed to occur under a set of experimental conditions, so that the theory might be falsified by performing the experiment and comparing predicted to actual results. A theory or explanation that cannot be falsified falls outside the domain of science. For example, Freudian psychoanalysis, which does not make specific experimental predictions, is able to revise its theory to match any observations, in order to avoid rejecting the theory altogether. By this reckoning, Freudianism is a pseudoscience, a theory that purports to be scientific but is in fact immune to falsification. In contrast, for example, Einstein’s theory of relativity made predictions (like the bending of starlight around the sun) that were novel and specific, and provided opportunities to disprove the theory by direct experimental observation. Advocates of Popper’s definition would seem to place on the same level as pseudoscience or nonscience every statement — of metaphysics, ethics, theology, literary criticism, and indeed daily life — that does not meet the criterion of falsifiability." (Quote: The Folly of Scientism by Austin L. Hughes)

Actually Robert Curry has collected a list of such scientific projects and published it here. The question is if such projects elevates astrology as it is practiced into a science.


At Astrology News Service you can read the article "The Multi-faceted Layers of Astrology" by Greg Bogard.

Quote #1: "One of the most important skills for an astrologer to master is the art of guiding ourselves, our loved ones, and our clients to fulfillment and success in our vocation, in our careers, in the path of our heart’s desire."

Quote #2: "Ultimately, the natal Sun is the primary vocational indicator. In addition to studying the dispositors of the Ascendant and MC and the overall sign and house emphasis of a chart, I closely examine natal Sun’s house and sign, solar aspects, and the placement of the Sun’s dispositor."

My comment: If astrology was that simple, I am sure Michel Gauqelin would have documented it in his extensive statistical research of charts belonging to various professional categories. And it wouldn't have been necessary for John Addey to write his masterpiece, "Harmonics in Astrology". And it would not have been difficult to convince the skeptics about the value of astrology. Anyway, the chart collections are available on the Internet - for example at AstroDataBank - so anybody can verify that Greg Bogard's claims do not hold.

The problem with Greg Bogard and like-minded astrologers, is that they never bother to test their claims, before presenting them. To them astrological dogma are true, if they are old and have been passed over by previous generations. That is how representatives and high priests of a religious faith think. Neither curiousity nor new approaches are needed, only gullibility and submission.

Astrologers complain about the skeptics, that they are prejudiced, too harsh and not fair. But when the majority of the astrologers are chained to habitual thinking and spiritual laziness, the astrological community deserves the mean tricks conducted by the skeptics - unfortunately.