Personally I use C in the winter and F in the summer and see no reason why
both can't be used for display purposes.
You may be interested to know that I am 5 ft 150 mm tall and weigh 12 st 3.6
kg
I think you are right in saying that whoever wrote the article simply got
the caluculator out to represent the F equivelent, rather than thinking
about it first.
You must be joking. Do you think someone who made a mistake like that would
know how to convert using a calculator?
Phil Hall
From: David King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:33416] UK Metro newspaper still metric but when using F
they got it wrong
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:52:40 +0100
I quote from a short article in Thursday's Metro newspaper (given away
free in London; page 9, orange
callout box):
"EU leaders have endorsed a commitment to ensure global temperatures do
not rise more than 2°C (36°F) above pre-industrial levels."
This is a good example of how people today really do not need degrees F,
as they really don't understand how to use it. In this example, they
needed to give the equivalent RISE in temperature, not the equivalent
temperature, but someone saw the 2°C and just went and converted it to
its F equivalent on the thermometer without thinking about the meaning.
This is one example of where giving a F conversion to a C temp actually
can cause confusion, especially to those who claim not to understand
degrees C. Also it shows that many people really do not understand degrees
F any more -- if they did, they would not make such a silly mistake.
I don't use Fahrenheit at all and I would not have bothered to give a F
equivalent in the article, but I can see that what they gave was wrong and
it shows a good understanding of metric but a lack of understanding of
imperial.
One more reason why F must be consigned to history ASAP and
we should use only degrees C.
--
David King
- [USMA:33438] RE: UK Metro newspaper still metric but whe... Philip S Hall
-
