Comment #425965 by LDmiller

(1) Name one perfectly respectable cosmologist who doesn't think Hubble's law is the correct explanation of galaxy redshifts.
(2) LK spent much of the talk providing exactly the evidence for dark energy/matter you're claiming he doesn't have. We predicted there would be invisible mass in the clusters. Done. We predicted there would be exactly the right amount of dark energy for the total energy to be 0, for very good physical reasons - hence, the cosmological constant would have the value associated with that amount. Done.
(3) If the LHC doesn't produce dark matter or dark energy, then they just have high rest masses, or are improbable to form (as gravitons are because of the associated weak cross sections). LK knows we have to look for evidence wherever we can find it, hence (2).
(4) RD tells off LK for not being sufficiently anti-religion, as was mentioned in the intro. Their friendship doesn't lead to the outcome you expect.

Empirical fail.