Dear Steve King,

You are the U.S. representative for Iowa’s 4th District, which includes Iowa State University of Science and Technology. I am appreciative of your service, but I have some serious concerns about statements made at an address to Fort Dodge residents last August. According to the Berkley Center at Georgetown University, you stated that, “[Climate change] is not proven, it’s not science. It’s more of a religion than a science.” This very “Yahoo comments section” statement illustrates your confusion of science and religion and the difference between the two. Just as relevant, it shows your lack of intellectual curiosity regarding the scientific method and scientific policy, which should concern Iowa voters. Because of this, I assert that your anti-scientific rhetoric is dangerous for past, present and future graduates of this research institute.

It may not be apparent to you, but we can learn a lot about you and your scientific knowledge and awareness from this one statement. First, we can see that you are not familiar with the scientific method. We can also see that you do not understand that science is a rigorous process that includes observations, experimentation and an analysis of data derived from experimentation.

Second, you do not seem to understand that Iowans benefit from science every day. Science is inextricably entangled and linked to the daily routine of this state and the people who reside in it. Iowans benefit from a great number of scientific applications each day such as communications, transportation, health, etc.

In addition, you do not seem to understand that there is a research institute in your district that explicitly teaches its students the fundamentals of scientific method. Physical science, engineering and mathematic students are taught scientific methodology with great detail no matter their fields of study and research. In fact, the scientific method and skills that are learned by the thousands of science, technology, engineering and math students at Iowa State will be applied to the future scientific and economic benefit of Iowa, the United States and the world.

It should be noted that you do not have a background in science, engineering or math. But it should also be noted and made very clear that this does not limit your ability to apply science policy, nor does it preclude you from serving in office. You are an American and I truly am appreciative of your service to your state and country, as are many other Iowans. However, what does preclude you is your sense of lethargy toward a scientific province for which you seem to express no interest or validity. Thus, your position is in staunch contrast to Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which states very clearly that Congress shall “promote the progress of science.” This is an enlightened idea — and this is an American idea — from which our country has greatly benefited.

With respect to climate science, you have clearly not done this and your rhetoric is clear on this point. Furthermore, you have not been held accountable for your nonsensical rhetoric. For example, you stated that climate science is a religion, but how is it responsible to retort such absurd oratory regarding the Earth’s changing climate when the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii has been documenting record levels of rising carbon dioxide and has been since the late 1950s? It doesn’t take a statistician to see that the carbon dioxide levels have been increasing drastically. Just look at the graph. Moreover, the organization that has been keeping track of the data is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Such records and relationships ought to be easily assessable for you, sir.

You are a U.S. representative of Iowa, of the 4th District and of Iowa State University. As a representative, your seat and service to state and country should be respected, but you should be challenged on your scientific rhetoric because it is not in line with modern scientific thought. Conversely, it seems that you are more interested in meandering and posting incoherent remarks in the comments section of Yahoo than of pursuing the best interests of Iowa and its citizens. Will you utilize your prestigious position in American leadership and pursue a science policy that is coherent with what the founding fathers so eloquently articulated more than two hundred years ago in the U.S. Constitution, stating that Congress shall “promote the progress of science”?