In my opinion, WMAP results have 'sealed the fate' of the way General Relativity has been applied to cosmology. In short -- it is not much needed.
Nice title -- but the article doesn't 'prove' a thing. Exotic dark matter won't be proved until it is no longer 'dark'. All that is shown here is that some results can be made consistent with someones preconceived ideas. There are far too many other possibilities in this situation to say it 'must' be 'dark matter'.
(Specifically, yes I have read the article -- and been through it more than once -- does not convince me.)
Can't you refer to peer-reviewed articles instead? Claim that DM is completely unknown is not consensus so you must back it up with something more than just your own opinions..
The article was published in Astrophysical Journal Letters, we know that the anomalies in galaxy rotations, gravitational lensing etc are due to matter, but what exactly this matter is composed of is yet left to be discovered.
Which forum paragraph prohibits you to post in full length? The crackpot paragraph?
You are only against the proposed explanation that the Dark Matter is "non-baryonic" i.e. you think Supersymmetric particles etc. is crap?