> our cosmic distance ladder calculations seem to have been very good
Not according to at least one research group described in the article: the Freedman group, which is only getting the higher answer using Cepheids, but gets a lower answer, one consistent with the CMBR calculations, by two other methods. Which raises the possibility that it's the Cepheid part of the cosmic distance ladder that's the problem.
Right, but that's been Freedman's project all along. Riess is continuing to publish results consistent with a higher H0 including both Cepheids and TRGB stars.
Perhaps we need some outside groups to take a look at this to see if either group is making systematic errors in their analyses.
He also has an alternative theory for stellar physics that might call into question the interpretation of Cepheids and SNs, tho I don't think he's done a major analysis there, at least afaik
Not according to at least one research group described in the article: the Freedman group, which is only getting the higher answer using Cepheids, but gets a lower answer, one consistent with the CMBR calculations, by two other methods. Which raises the possibility that it's the Cepheid part of the cosmic distance ladder that's the problem.