QUOTE(King Of Beasts @ Feb 3 2014, 05:10 PM)

When talking about meting metal, yes, 100 is cold, but we're not talking about melting points. We're talking about temp outside, the earth isn't gonna have an atmosphere hot enough to melt metal, because then it would be uninhabitable.
That depends what metal you're talking about. Mercury, for instance melts below zero, Fahrenheit or Celsius.
QUOTE(King Of Beasts @ Feb 3 2014, 05:10 PM)

It's better to have a temp system with a proper scale than one with temps all over the place.
Now you're getting subjective. "A proper scale"? That could literally mean anything.
QUOTE(King Of Beasts @ Feb 3 2014, 05:10 PM)

If you're saying that the evidence I'm using is invalid, then that goes for you as well. You can't say Celsius is the right way to measure temp, because quite frankly, it isn't. I'm not saying Fahrenheit is either, the truth is there is no proper scale for temperature, but it's more logical to put the wether on a 0-10 scale, where the closer the temp is to 0 the colder it is, than have a scale where 30, which is very close to 0, burning hot. It just doesn't make sense. It's just completely illogical to consider a temp so close to 0 burning hot.
I'm saying that you're not using
any evidence. That your entire argument is subjective and without any valid scale by which to judge anything. Are you arguing that every region should have its own temperature scale of 1-10? because the sheer range of temperature variations across the planet make a global scale of 1-10 impossible, and a regional scale would just result in mass confusion for everyone when they travel. Because suddenly a temperature of 6, perfectly comfortable in one region, is far hotter in another, because the maximum temperature there is so much higher.
So a scale solely for the weather fundamentally couldn't work, so judging any temperature scale by weather is fundamentally invalid for that very reason.