You would not get a more obvious example of confirmation bias than that of a paper submitted by Climategate "scientist" Phil Jones. The reviewer of his paper who , unlike the good professor understands scientific method suggests to Jones that the aim of the paper should be to analyse data and draw conclusions from that analysis. This of course is in direct contrast to Warmist "science" where the results of any analysis are already known - it is just a matter of finding some way, no matter how circuitous or illogical , to justify the conclusion and feed it to gullible believers.
I immediately balked at your statement: ˜the purpose of this study is… to show.. that the magnitude of the UHI for central London is not increasing ". You surely do not mean that: your purpose is to study the data and see what conclusions can be drawn.
The Climategate emails are a fascinating look at how the scientific process had been corrupted by those who should be the guardians of scientific standards. A searchable version of the emails is available here.
H/T Tom Nelson for his great ongoing work on the Climategate 2 emails.