Well, the USGS map only used average temps, which is a terrible way to go about getting accurate results for the potential invasive range of a poikilothermic species. Additionally, data was compared with the entire range of Python molurus, which includes the Indian python, which can tolerate cooler temperatures. This is before even taking into consideration that Burmese pythons in the pet trade in the United States were only taken from a small area of that entire range. Different members of the same species can be quite different physiologically in different populations, and most of the imported Burmese pythons in the US pet trade are from more of the tropical populations in their range.

Bottom line: The USGS had a specific aim with their study and fabricated "science" to attempt to reach it. Now other scientists are forced to perform experiments due to the conflicting information provided by this and another study (Pyron et al, 2008). Unfortunately, it seems some like the one in South Carolina just want to make excuses and deny the accuracy of their own results. Sounds quite counter-productive to me, but it's a lot more difficult to get unbiased journals when people stand to make a lot of money if their findings support one of the sides over the other.