Wow, seriously, wow. You're accusing me of bullshitting and you come up with this?

I'd seriously recommend educating yourself on the imperial system of measure before you continue to make a fool of yourself. I doubt very much that you really use 0 or 100 as a reference point. Scientists often don't even bother with Celsius as it's not as useful as Kelvin is.

It makes comparing the temperature in places that have subfreezing weather with areas of warmer weather marginally more convenient.

I agree, this is why I consider metric to be more convienient.. however had I been born before decimalisation and been used to LSD (pounds, shillings and pence, people) then I may feel differently.

That's confusing the issue right there. You could measure out flower in milliliters or deciliters for the same effect. In the imperial system we could, and really should, use pounds or ounces instead of by volume for the reason you're suggesting.

It's true provided that it's YYYY-MM-DD. It's common in most countries to have DD-MM-YYYY for everyday use and in official government documents, but in countries such as the US, the everyday method is MM-DD-YYYY (obviously you don't always use the year because people usually know what year it is). Nobody really cares about the ISO standard unless you're dealing with some really anally technical stuff.

Well if you want to bring Kelvin into the equation then from that standpoint we're both wrong.

But if leaving that out, then if I look at a street and see ice I say it's zero or below... I can't say the same for a farenheit measurement, because in that instance I'm not necessarily correct seeing as zero farenheit is about -15 celsius.. and that's a HUGE difference... So Yes, if you want to 'judge' a temperature measurement then celsius is by far the simplest in terms of freezing and boiling, I, nor anyone I know could even begin to 'judge' Farenheit temperature, for the most part it's just a number with no observable means of differentiation.
So if it's accuracy isn't even determinable til a month after the issue then why the hell is it being reffered to as a substitute for GMT.. That makes it pointless AND inaccurate.

I prefer Fahrenheit for everyday weather stuff and metric measurements for everything else. The reason I like Fahrenheit more is simply because it's easier to give an accurately approximated number, simply because a single degree is smaller in that scale. Your normal temperatures are going to be between 20 and 100, which gives you more leeway than you get with Celsius, which is usually -5 to 40 in a year. I find it more user-friendly to say "it's in the sixties" than to try and determine whether it's low teens or upper teens.

What do you base your observation on?

Is it that you know the Farenheit temperature for ice on the road or boiling water and take it from there?

Because I don't see how anyone can walk outside without a thermometor.. and just 'judge' the temperature. Personally I NEED observable evidence... I know what freezing is and everything apart from that is pure conjecture.. if it's really cold but not freezing then I can with some sense of accuracy say low celsius.. but apart from that I don't see how it's possible unless you are used to a wide range of absolute temperatures and can base your judgement from there.

Although I'll certainly be the first to admit my limited experience with warm weather.

That's basically exactly what I do, and I can generally judge the temperature accurately to within a few degrees. Different temperatures have a different feel to them. You just learn which numbers correlate with which conditions. It's harder to judge very cold temperatures (twenty below feels a lot like ten below) and it's harder to judge very high temperatures especially when humidity is involved (humid 80/30 feels a lot like humid 95/35; dry 95/35 feels a lot like dry 110/40) but for milder stuff it's not that difficult if you spend a lot of time outside.

You don't think -1 C is cold?

If by technical stuff you mean anything related to a computer, then yes. I'd go as far as to say that the ISO standard for dates is now the most ubiquitous dating scheme, due to its exclusive use in the internal representation of files by computers.

So in reality it's not friendlier it's just what your more used to. Here we can tell the difference to within a degree or so which is probably about the best you can manage once conversion is done

Yes and no... I still stick to the point I'm making about freezing and boiling. There are observable effects there that occur at easily recognised points in the celsius scale.. if you walk around 'knowing' that freezing is 32 farenheit then fair enough, on a personal point of view it would come down to familiarity... but everyone knows zero celsius is freezing and 100 celsius is boiling, but not everyone knows the farenheit equivalent.. so I still contend that overall, the celsius scale is more accessable, and as there is no EASY arithmetical correlation between C and F you can't even translate 100 C to be 132 F, it isn't.

More people are aware of the celsius extremes than the Farenheit ones, that's the basis of my contention.

LOL.. you're answering him and I'm answering you..I got it into my head that you were quoting me.. :/

Soz.

As I said before, it's almost entirely to do with the size of the unit rather than anything else. For everything apart from temperature I prefer metric, which is NOT what I grew up with. Because a degree in Fahrenheit is "smaller" than a degree in Celsius, unless you're willing to deal in tenths or hundredths it's a more accurate measurement, especially when you're rounding off to fives or tens (which is what people do, because most everyone nowadays thinks in base ten). For instance, the difference between 65 and 70 F is narrower than the difference between 15 and 20 C.

If water boiled at 350 F and Celsius was still 0-100 freezing-boiling, everyone would be doing the weather in halves and quarters.

Well I'm definately better with cold weather.. above a certain temperature I'm completely lost.