Wiltshire's paper is basically doing what tired light, intrinsic redshift and other redshift relation doubters have been looking for, but have failed to do in a convincing way. It hypothesizes that there is a flaw in the standard redshift-distance relation, and that this flaw makes much of the unexplained weirdness in cosmology (in Wiltshire's case dark energy, cosmic accelleration, WMAP implication of early structure formation, and large scale curvature of any meaningful amount) vanish in one fell swoop.
Wiltshire also has the virtue of, at least Wiltshire claims, doing what Kolb did the hard way with an exact solution, rather than a lot of physicist approximations and hand waving.
Wiltshire's justification for the standard redshift-distance relation flaw basically flows from an assumption that the super-horizon universe has a particular density, and that our existing models do a poor job of matching the data to a time scale that makes sense for that data as a result.
One wants to root for Wiltshire. A non-weird cosmology is very attractive. Throw in a 4D LQG, which gets rid of the multi-dimensional weirdness and the abundant undiscovered particle predictions of M-theory, eliminates the singularities of GR, and which also has a non-abelian gravity which in turn could imply something like MOND (and hence eliminate the need for dark matter), and you get to a place where you can describe the observed phenomena of the universe with a formalism that doesn't make your head explode or imply a lot of new phenomena that we've never seen. Everything starts to make sense in a fairly straightforward way.
Of course, this makes most of what the mainstream science press and a super-majority of the cosmology and string theory (i.e. theoretical quantum physics) community has said for the past couple of decades sound like wacky hallucinating conjecture, but hey, lifes a b--- and then you die.
On the other hand, the standard redshift-distance relation has held up very robustly thus far in the face of numerous flawed attempts to explain away the weirdness that this model implies when you look at the data, and it is difficult to believe that this relation can really be disturbed by something as modest as some modest assumptions about the density of matter-energy in a super-horizon region. Isn't the relation more robust than that? Hence, serious skepticism is in order. I can't follow the math in Wiltshire rigorously enough to see if there is a conceptual flaw in his argument for a conversion between a "measured Hubble constant" and a "true Hubble constant". But, there are plenty of people who are capable of doing so, and since the Kolb paper has attacted so much attention, and Wiltshire himself appears to have received so many comments in a fairly short time period, one would hope that this could be sorted out fairly quickly.
or 
or 
