A few weeks after President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, President Barack Obama nominated an American physicist to head the bureau.
It wasn’t a huge surprise.
For decades, America’s most famous scientist had been the director of the U.S. Department of Energy.
But the president had decided that it wasn’t enough for Comey to be a “brilliant intellect,” Obama said in announcing his choice, which was expected to be announced this week.
The president also had another goal: To convince the American public that the American people are ready for a change in leadership at the Department of Labor, Obama said.
But in a recent interview with CNN, Comey made it clear that he was not ready to quit his job.
“I’ve been fired twice for trying to get things done,” he said, adding that the two times he was fired, “it wasn’t because of what I did or didn’t do.
It was because of the political nature of it.”
What’s a physicist?
When President Ronald Reagan appointed physicist Lawrence Krauss to lead the Department, he was also making the decision to appoint a physicist as director of a federal agency.
He wasn’t going to make the appointment because of Krauss’ science.
Krauss, who was an associate professor at Stanford University, was the first of a new generation of physicists who were being given the opportunity to serve in a senior role at the department.
He is credited with leading a research effort that helped to solve the riddle of black holes, a scientific puzzle that has remained unsolved since the 1930s.
But when Krauss left the DOE in 2009, he found himself at the center of an ideological debate over whether the U,S.
should be an industrial democracy.
Kraus is the author of more than 100 books, including several about the energy transition from a fossil fuel economy to a clean-energy economy.
He also wrote a controversial book called The End of Oil, which argued that a clean energy future would require eliminating nuclear power and the massive subsidies that came with it.
Krausk, who has also advocated for a more muscular foreign policy, said he is not an alarmist.
“The idea of a world in which energy is free from foreign interference and where we have no need for foreign oil is pretty radical,” Krauss said.
“But we have to be cautious about what we do.
What do physicists do? “
A world without oil would be an unattractive world.”
What do physicists do?
A number of physicists have also come out in favor of the Clean Energy Future Act, which would create incentives for companies to use cleaner forms of energy, such as wind and solar.
“In the United States, we have a long history of going to war and having the government pay for the damage done to our economy,” said Lawrence W. Kostelnick, an associate vice president at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
“It’s been a bad deal for the country and for the world.”
A physicist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has written a book called Why We’re In A Dirty War, which argues that a world without fossil fuels would be unattractive.
“What we really need is to start looking at alternatives,” he told CNN.
“We need to make sure we don’t lose our jobs, we need a clean and affordable energy future, and that’s a long-term plan.”
Kostenick has also written a letter to the editor of Scientific American, arguing that the “nuclear industry and the oil industry have more in common than most think.”
The letter, which received more than 500 responses, argues that the nuclear industry is “driven by greed” and “is not the right answer for our energy needs,” which it claims are “increasingly tied to the demands of industrial society.”
The oil industry, on the other hand, has seen its fortunes rise, fueled by the boom in fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, of oil and natural gas deposits.
“They’re really getting rich off the ground, and it’s a very dangerous environment,” Kostelman said.
In an interview with The New York Times, Krauss also expressed skepticism about the idea that clean energy will make a difference to the world’s energy mix.
“To me, the energy of the future will be made up of more and more carbon, more and less and more and fewer hydrogen, and then we’ll see how it will play out,” he stated.
“My sense is that the world is heading into a period where the world has already been using fossil fuels and the world will be using renewables for the foreseeable future.
I don’t think we should be surprised if we see a rapid transition to renewables, and I don://t think we will be surprised.”
Krauss is not alone in the U and abroad in criticizing the Clean Future Act.
Many scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, have said that