That is close to faint praise. The data could not have been much worse. They were expecting 85 bodies and found 3. If they would have not found any, then I suppose the wording would have been changed to "The observed data is somewhat consistent with the interpretation that mass is present in the CKB (Central Kiper Belt) and that this mass resides entirely in bodies presently undetectable by current techniques.". Science is quickly becoming "Ripley's Believe it or Not" class.
"Those who believe the solar system is 4.6 billion years old have a burning problem on their hands explaining why comets are still with us. Like sparklers, they only dazzle for awhile."
Unlike the unscientific creationists works that you are used to reading Andrew, scientific papers usually list every possible interpretation of the data, given the author's assumptions. That's why, if at all possible, I read the paper, not rely on some press release or (even worse) some creationist claptrap on the subject. Since the author did the work, it is likely that he knows the subject better than nearly anyone else, and best of all, you might learn something.