Nonetheless, if we are right - it's important, and that's why we're working on it.
So say you but I'll go with the previous suggestion of creating a problem to secure more funding. Let's say you are correct; what then? How does that affect one iota what we do when ploughing the skies? What practical use is there of this study, instead of just more theory bound up in a big book with a clever bloke's name on it?
We could of course, very easily, prove his theory correct. More carbon dioxide = more CAT and more fatalities (allegedly). Therefore, reduce carbon dioxide by reducing the number of those nasty machines in the air that produce the stuff and, hey presto, fewer CAT incidents. Cause and effect or something, isn't it?
The reality is that aircraft numbers are going to increase, not decrease. Whether his theory is correct or not there will be an increase in CAT encounters and, in my opinion, just shows that a study such as his may be alright for white-coated boffins to sit around and discuss but the result of his work will not make any difference to the way we operate.
For lentil-eating, vegan sandal wearers it will be great news as it just gives them another excuse to gob off about how carbon dioxide is now proven to actually kill people because of CAT.