Not true.Problem with this is that you are treating, in normal Wehrboo fashion, the Luftwaffe as being somehow not subject to the same constraints as everybody else. The Luftwaffe on the days it was not flying as much was resting , repairing and reinforcing, things it was in desperate need of. Better weather therefore means more chance to fly but less availability on the planes, the number of attacks will not increase as much as you seem to think. Why you think Luftwaffe pilots not trained to attack ships will do much good on ships able to maneuver is beyond me, its a skill that everyone else needed a lot of practice at.
Reason people mention Sealion is we don't trust you not be be trying to use this as a stalking horse to claim Sealion would have been possible in a later thread.
During the period 27th May to 2nd June Luftwaffe fighters flew 2000 sorties OTL, that's fewer than two sorties per aircraft over a seven day period. The bombers flew even fewer sorties OTL, less than 1.5 sorties per aircraft over the seven day period. The only aircraft that did more was the Ju87 which flew 805 sorties, mostly only on just 2 1/2 days. That's roughly one sortie per day. If you look at what I said initially "Secondly, it only took 2 ½ days of full-scale attacks for the British to change tactics and continue the majority of the evacuation at night only. So, the chances are that the fleet losses would be slightly higher in real life, maybe another 10% at most. The main effect would probably be a shortening of Operation Dynamo with maybe 70-100,000 fewer troops rescued." I maybe didn't make it too clear that my opinion is that the British would swap to night time operations sooner, maybe after three days of attack, so the number of sorties for the Ju87 would not greatly increase (in my opinion) they would just be condensed into a shorter period. Shipping losses might increase slightly only because the Germans would have three days rather than two and a half. That 10% increase equates to another two destroyers damaged and immobilised at most, very insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
As for your final statement, fair enough, I know it not to be true but you think what you like.