Thanks to Jay B. Litvak for his letter (Re. "Challenge to climate change argument," Oct. 1).
It is so nice to read a letter in the Forum from someone with legitimate and credible credentials, rather than comments from those who take almost anything they can find from the Web to argue an opinion. Anyone with a computer has found that you can look on the Web to find "data" to argue almost any opinion thinkable.
Sources like Wikipedia and "The Old Farmer's Almanac" (where the purpose of publication is to help farmers get the best crops for one year at a time), which has been used in the past in letters to the Forum for data to determine climate change, and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which, according to Litvak's research, was mostly interested in getting the maximum number of signatures, are hardly good sources for scientific arguments to predict long-term climate change.
Although I don't intend to submit any scientific data to the climate-change issue, I feel that I have the background to differentiate between the scientific and non-scientific arguments. I have bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical engineering and am retired from a career at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and McDonnell Douglas, where I worked with scientists on space projects for 30 years.
Another thank you to Litvak, for the time he spent on research for inputs on climate change predictions. From the details in his letter, he has obviously conducted scientific research.
I have added the name Jay B. Litvak to my list of credible views on climate change. The list also includes New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman (a three-time Pulitzer Prize winner), Tom Brokaw, Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria and Al Gore.
Conrad T. Timpe