We've come a long way, baby.
You asked, open-endedly, "What are your thoughts?" I always have a lot of thoughts.
In the old days, it was important to literally, "Keep your powder dry", referring to the powder in your flintlock's pan. At Agincourt, it is said, the English and Welsh archers kept their bows unstrung (as opposed to the French) and it rained. While the French's (wet) bowstrings stretched, the English and Welsh kept their bowstrings dry inside their clothes until after the rain stopped and the battle started. Thus, they had better range.
So much for old history.
Revolvers have relatively delicate mechanisms (compared to semi-autos) While they are generally well shielded against entry of problematic materials, if you "torture test" a revolver, dropping it in sandy mud and sloshing it around, you are likely to jam up the barrel/cylinder gap, the advancing hand, the locking hand, the sear perhaps and the trigger and hammer, maybe. Maybe even blocking the firing pin.
The semi-auto, on the other hand can get jamming grit in the rails and if the chamber gets even a little foreign material in in the chamber, you are certain to get a jam.
The U.S. government torture tested semi-automatic handguns before adopting the 1911 Government Model and the Beretta M9 as well. Other organizations have tested the Glocks, Sigs, Radoms, etc. as well as competing revolvers.
While the efficacy of G.S.A.'s testing may be questionable (witness the early versions of the M-16), the evidence is pretty clear.
It appears autoloaders have come out on top.
But there is more.
The typical civilian, and most law enforcement personnel will not be required to go through the rigors of our military. Nor will their sidearms.
Most civilians carry inside their clothing and their carry weapons are not exposed to extreme temperatures, mud, grit etc. Most Law enforcement and civilian weapons go home daily and are not subject to the abuse to which military arms are subject.
But wait, there's even more.
The General Issue (G.I.) sidearm is reputed to be virtually unjammable. Probably because of the generous tolerances in its moving parts, the better to not be jammed up by foreign materials. The G.I. 1911 of WWII is famous for this, and concomitantly famous for its inaccuracy. An accurized 1911 has closer tolerances and proportionately greater likelihood of jamming.
So, in operation, a revolver NEVER has problems chambering where a semi-auto might (reloading is another matter). Lubricants gummed up by by the cold might disable a revolver more often than a semi, but if either is kept close to the body is not likely to be a factor. Lube selection can mitigate this effect. (Do you pay attention to the weight of the motor oil in your car's engine? Do you pay as much attention to the lubrication in your self-defense guns?) The amount of concern you should give to entry of foreign material has the same sort of factors.
So, to answer the original question: It depends. Mostly on you and your situation.
In the final analysis of the totality of factors, the choice between action types should probably include not only cold temperatures, but also how finely tuned (and finicky) that PARTICULAR GUN is, the odds that foreign materials will be a factor, number of rounds in the gun before reload, speed of reload and probably the first consideration, "What is the threat?".
I hope my thoughts (as contradictory as they are) have helped.
Lost Sheep.
