<i>The 2007 study should be seen as a snapshot of what was known then.</i><p>We now know that "snapshot" wasn't the intent because the "no glaciers in 2025" claim was included even though they knew that it was wrong because they wanted to influence the politics.<p><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scie...</a><p>FWIW, while they're trying to distance themselves from the claim, they've kept the immediate author on-payroll.  Are they buying him off or protecting their own?