I think that whether we agree or not, Jack is giving us valuable insight into the view of the non-herp community. Whether or not we agree that these reptiles can survive in various states is not the complete issue. If we lose ourselves in details like that, we will lose this fight.

The issue that I personally heard Jack bringing to our attention is the concern of what happens to the unwanted reptiles. Whether or not they can survive in the wild, yes, is important. However, even if a burmese python can only survive for say 50 days in a "warm state", it still could inflict damage in those short 50 days in some people's opinions. It still could eat the endangered pocket gopher native only to a small sector of that area (Yes, this animal is fictional LOL!) It still could eat a beloved family pet, and some people don't care how long it can survive, if it is out there at all it is a problem!
I am one who believes we must understand our opposition in order to win the battle. The problem from their view point is what happens to the unwanted reptiles? Jack graciously brought this issue to our attention. Whether we agree or not on where they can or cannot survive, we must address this issue. If we don't, the government will do it for us. So we can try to come up with a solution that will benefit us, the reptile community, or we can leave it to the government who would just as happily end our rights to own these animals. We need to bring to their attention the facts, but we must understand their point of view very well in order to produce the best argument we can. I think sometimes we get lost in "Well I don't agree with that", and then fail to really try to see things from their perspective.
I think Jack provided us with a valuable thing when he agreed to that interview, and gave us his opinion. His gives us much needed insight into the mindset of the zoological community. If we can get them on our side, and address their concerns, we may win this battle yet!