Cross posted to the MRC's NewsBusters blog
On her eponymous Friday show, MSNOW host Chris Jansing had on liberal researcher Michael Mann to fret over predictions that few countries will have enough snow to host future Olympic games due to the use of fossil fuels. He also eventually blamed global warming for recent extremely cold temperatures.
Introducing the segment, Jansing recalled:
Well, today, Mikaela Shiffrin, Lindsey Vonn, Chloe Kim are preparing to hit the slopes and the halfpipe for the Winter Olympics, but recent games have had to take increasingly elaborate measures to counter the warming effects of climate change. A recent study flagged by the Washington Post found that by the middle of this century, there could be fewer than 20 countries with the right conditions and infrastructure to host the games.
She added: "One climate science researcher told the L.A. Times, 'We're going to see more warming around the world. We're actually seeing the Winter Olympic games literally melting before our very eyes.'"
After bringing aboard Professor Mann, Jansing began by posing: "Are we looking at a future winter games that are that much of a challenge melting before our eyes?"
He immediately went along with the premise:
...yeah, I mean, this is an example of just the profound impact that we are having on the planet that we are having on, you know, everyday life. You know, it's not just some far off problem in the future that impacts polar bears -- it's influencing us and our way of life right now. And this is just another reminder of that.
The MSNOW host followed up by fretting that there will be problems with the 2034 Winter Olympics:
One study estimates that by 2050, only four countries would be able to host the Olympics without machine-made snow. The IOC has said it is considering moving up future games from February to January when conditions might be better. The Salt Lake City mayor told the L.A. Times he bets that the 2034 games won't happen in his city as planned due to climate change. Quote, "If that's happening now, why do we think 2034 is going to be any better?" If there's the will, could change happen fast enough to change the equation for Utah eight years from now?
Mann recalled that there had not been enough snow in Vancouver for the 2010 Olympics, and soon tied in the burning of fossil fuels as he predicted:
We can't produce enough snow and enough cooling to allow for these events to proceed if we continue to warm the planet. That's a big if because let's keep in mind that this is under the assumption that we continue to warm the planet through carbon pollution -- through the burning of fossil fuels. And we do have a choice here.
Jansing soon cued up her guest to take a shot at global warming skeptics:
...whether it's the Olympics or just winter sports destinations, the financial stakes are really high. Salt Lake alone is projecting $6.6 billion in economic activity from the Olympics over a decade. Have you been surprised that folks who argue climate change mitigation is too expensive don't see the long term expense?
The liberal activist responded:
Yeah, that's absolutely right. You know, we hear from climate critics, from opponents of taking climate action that is too expensive to act when just the opposite is the case. It's far too expensive not to act. And here we're talking about the expense of relocating and building infrastructure in a changing climate for a winter, winter sports events, the Winter Olympics. But think about the extreme weather events, the floods, the heatwaves, the wildfires, the superstorms that we've contended with in recent years that cost billions of dollars in terms of insured damages. And in some places, you can't even get insurance anymore because of wildfire risk, because of flooding risk. And so the reality is that it's too expensive not to act.
The MSNOW host concluded the segment by reading a Truth Social post by President Donald Trump questioning the existence of global warming during the current cold weather, leading Mann to predictably blame the extremely low temperatures on global warming.
Transcript follows:
MSNOW's Chris Jansing Reports
February 6, 2026
12:42 p.m. Eastern
CHRIS JANSING: Well, today, Mikaela Shiffrin, Lindsey Vonn, Chloe Kim are preparing to hit the slopes and the halfpipe for the Winter Olympics, but recent games have had to take increasingly elaborate measures to counter the warming effects of climate change. A recent study flagged by the Washington Post found that by the middle of this century, there could be fewer than 20 countries with the right conditions and infrastructure to host the games. One climate science researcher told the L.A. Times, "We're going to see more warming around the world. We're actually seeing the Winter Olympic games literally melting before our very eyes."
Let me bring in Michael Mann, author of Science Under Siege and UPenn presidential distinguished professor of Earth and environmental science. It's always good to see you, Michael. Are we looking at a future winter games that are that much of a challenge melting before our eyes?
PROFESSOR MICHAEL MANN, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Yeah. Hi, Chris. It's good to be with you. And, yeah, I mean, this is an example of just the profound impact that we are having on the planet that we are having on, you know, everyday life. You know, it's not just some far off problem in the future that impacts polar bears -- it's influencing us and our way of life right now. And this is just another reminder of that.
JANSING: One study estimates that by 2050, only four countries would be able to host the Olympics without machine-made snow. The IOC has said it is considering moving up future games from February to January when conditions might be better. The Salt Lake City mayor told the L.A. Times he bets that the 2034 games won't happen in his city as planned due to climate change. Quote, "If that's happening now, why do we think 2034 is going to be any better?" If there's the will, could change happen fast enough to change the equation for Utah eight years from now?
MANN: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, in 2010, in Vancouver, the Winter Olympics nearly had to be canceled because there was no snow in Vancouver, you know, in the middle of the winter. And they had to do everything they could to try to move in enough snow from other locations, manufacture snow. And so it's getting more and more difficult to actually hold this, you know, this event, this, this classic event, the Winter Olympics, in the traditional locations that we associate with them right now in Cortina -- Milan-Cortina, one of the classic ski resorts in the world.
And they are going to have trouble in the future in being able to hold the Winter Olympics because there just isn't the infrastructure. We can't produce enough snow and enough cooling to allow for these events to proceed if we continue to warm the planet. That's a big if because let's keep in mind that this is under the assumption that we continue to warm the planet through carbon pollution -- through the burning of fossil fuels. And we do have a choice here.
JANSING: Well, just to punctuate what you said, I've covered a lot of Olympics. The Vancouver games were many days warmer than the London summer games that I also covered. And in Sochi, there's a bunch of pictures of me sitting outside the venues in like a T shirt. So you're right, it was already leading up to this. And I think, you know, whether it's the Olympics or just winter sports destinations, the financial stakes are really high. Salt Lake alone is projecting $6.6 billion in economic activity from the Olympics over a decade. Have you been surprised that folks who argue climate change mitigation is too expensive don't see the long term expense?
MANN: Yeah, that's absolutely right. You know, we hear from climate critics, from opponents of taking climate action that is too expensive to act when just the opposite is the case. It's far too expensive not to act. And here we're talking about the expense of relocating and building infrastructure in a changing climate for a winter, winter sports events, the Winter Olympics. But think about the extreme weather events, the floods, the heatwaves, the wildfires, the superstorms that we've contended with in recent years that cost billions of dollars in terms of insured damages. And in some places, you can't even get insurance anymore because of wildfire risk, because of flooding risk. And so the reality is that it's too expensive not to act.
JANSING: We've only got a minute left, but I want to ask you this because during last month's cold wave, this is what President Trump posted: "Could the environmental insurrectionists please explain whatever happened to global warming?" I mean, he's not alone. Plenty of folks look at the cold wave now. They say, "What climate change?" What don't they understand?
MANN: Yeah. So there's so much in that short tweet that's -- or that short post that's wrong and misleading. You know, we actually have published some research recently, just this last summer that shows that these classic winter storms that we call nor'easters, that bring huge amounts of snowfall and often frigid temperatures along the U.S. East Coast -- climate change is intensifying those storms. So even though overall it's warming up and overall the snow cover season is shorter, individual storms can actually produce larger amounts of snow, and they can produce more extreme temperatures because they are becoming stronger and they're becoming stronger in this case because we're warming up the oceans. And those coastal winter storms actually feed off of the heat of the oceans. And so we actually expect more of these very intense winter storms, these nor'easters, in the future as we continue to warm the planet.
. steve malzberg
