The usual extravagant craziness. The desire to oppose to factual evidences often forces you to skip consistency constraints in your argouments. Notice that the same exactly applies to your email to AM when you asked about the 48.5°C of Catenanuova in 1999. How can you prove that you did not edit the response and you did not manipulate it how you liked it? That's matter of verifiability. Anyone can email Sarantopoulos or anyone else in HNMS showing the links to the reportage and check what was asked and if the response was reported allegiantly or not.
Thats the merit of methodological falsificationism: verifiable things can be checked with ease, and dismissed if false. Never read Karl Popper yet?
For instance, I have recently emailed a health psychologist at the Kingston's and asked her if she advises any phd student (with some more detail).
Perhaps you have not understood too well the empirical result and the conceptual point originating the issue. In Sunday there is less UHI in industrial areas, not more UHI, as during days with less intense activity there is less energy usage and less thermal pollution. If a record is measured on Sunday it is more likely to be less inflated by UHI, not more. So in Sunday Jul 10, 1977 UHI was less an advantage than it would be say Thursday 14 July 1977. However empirical data shows that for Elefsina in 70's there was not clear weekly trend in daily mean temperatures. The trend becomes clear and systematic in 2000's.
About the 48°C in 1977, I have not particular demurs about. It is a old record measured by old technology equipment as many others are, and perhaps they are comparatively reasonable. I actually do not know how much Elefsina temperature were inflated by UHI in 1977. UHI is a major problem today, but in my opinion it was not in mid-70's. For me, the 48°C is good. I would be much more prudent, instead, with Thissio, Hellinikon and Nea Filadelfia contemporary measures, that are inflated by the UHI.
) its only fair to ask for further proof in ''bona fide''
following the logical fallacies problem you seem to be inclined to!
