Consider this: What if the premise (theory) by which all other measurements are made is in and of itself, wrong, and that other "ludicrous" ideas might actually have merit, but are ignored? Just something to chew on.
Anyway, a quote form the article interests me. "Yet other astronomers, particularly those who first analyzed the WMAP results, remain unconvinced."
Well of course they are. If they were convinced they were wrong, their funding would stop and they'd all have to find another gravy train to study on. As altruistic as I'd like scientists to be, money still drives the boat, especially in today's world, so you don't bite the hand that feeds you...or at least you allow that hand to blind you just enough to conflicting data that you hold steadfast to your position.
I'm not saying astrophysicist Tom Shanks of Durham University in England is right or wrong (although I personally can't stand this Dark Matter/Energy dogma), but I do like his position that he hopes future measurements of the microwave background radiation from new telescopes will help clear up the issue. At least he's not saying, "We're right. You're wrong."