... the most idiotic paper I have read all year. It's a silly collection of straw-man arguments, with no actual science in it at all.
What they claim is "universally accepted" (actually, they claim it is almost "universally accepted"
, quotes theirs), isn't. Which is why they have to use the silly quotation marks.
Plateau-like models are not the only ones consistent with Planck. See: the Planck paper on inflationary constraints
Inflation has always had a problem with initial conditions. Guess what? It's still there.
"A challenge for the inflationary paradigm in light of the Planck2013 data is to explain why no significant multiverse effects have been observed" Wuh? Maybe, um, because there might not be
a multiverse at all?