> The thing is that "No Evidence" is just flat untrue.

No it isn't, it's a term of art and it tells you something very important: the second half of the phrase is still only a hypothesis and no one has tried or been able to prove it in a rigorous way. And if you understand that, it gives you a lot of context for how to interpret it.

Does it get misused by non-scientists to mean other things? Sure. But you get lied to every day with far more sophistication, so I guess I don't understand the huff about this particular bit of jargon.

This was a weak article, basically. Leave the scientists their jargon, if you don't like how it's being used, argue about the specifics of the point.