How much money is the Obama administration giving the U.N. for......?

It is up to The House of Representatives to request the report from the OMB. I believe the most recent report was June 2011.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/...

The 2010 report:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/...

Your question is extremely vague. What exactly do you mean with 'spend on climate change'? Do you mean the IPCC's efforts of researching the issue or do you mean combatting climate change?

Give the link you provide, a piece written by a 'Rat' in a 'Journal of Conservative Excellence' which gives great credibility to James Inhofe, my guess is that you are more interested in the usual demagoguery which we get around here then in the actual numbers (which I found in just 10 minutes of Googling).

That Mr Inhofe thinks that Obama has pledged a much higher figure to the UN Green Climate Fund is laughable. Surely, Mr Inhofe must know that it is the US Congress which must authorize, appropriate and oversee any funding at all.

The real figures are out there, nothing is hidden nor secret nor unaccounted for nor not itemized. Here's a first link to properly inform yourself of the UN Green Climate Fund. Follow the State Department links below to find your figures if that is really what you are after. It's all out there, freely accessible to anyone with an internet connection and an unbiased brain.

Congressional Research Service: "International Climate Change Financing: The Green Climate Fund (GCF)" Dec 2011 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41889.pdf

State Department: "U.S. Climate Finance: Meeting the Fast Start Commitment":

http://www.state.gov/e/oes/climate/faststart/index...

State Department: "Meeting the Fast Start Commitment; U.S. Climate Finance in Fiscal Year 2012"

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/201130...

Edit:

<<100 billion by 2030? doesnt that sound absurd to you givin the fact that the U.N. admitts that the funding will do nothing to reduce "greenhouse" gas emitions?>>

That's a total fallacy not supported by any actual evidence. Stop believing denier claims. Or are you really, really that naive to believe that the US, an all other sovereign nations who voted to adopt the Copenhagen Accords, would vote to pay considerable amounts of money knowing that it would not cut emissions?

It's the deniers and their industry linked backers who'd love you to believe that! That's why they've come up with this whole bogus 'wealth-redistribution' claim to get as much support as possible to defeat this issue which in reality only affects their annual profits and big CEO bonusses.

I think Bacheous is right that the House is supposed to oversee the money.

But this doesn't really stop Obama and the Dems from taking our money for redistribution into the sewer of the UN. The new treaties including the one regarding the Law of the Sea would allow the UN to tax the US in various. Fortunately, enough Republican Senators are holding it at bay so far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Conven...

If they don't get what they want through treaties, they have other means.

Sandy relief is a good example of Washington spending. They never let a catastrophe go by without spending 3 times as much on relief as the damage. We have to bail out insurance companies so idiots like Chrispie Creme (New Jersey's Governor) can pretend he is accomplishing something.

Obama came within a hare's breath of not being able to pay the White House utility bill and people claim that he is giving the UN many billions? Ridiculous.

The Obama Administration are the ones who are allowing shell to drill their ugly wells in the Arctic this summer, they are putting enormous strain on that already so fragile wilderness

a real skeptic would recheck these figures.

BTW, one storm (Sandy) cost about 50 billion.

50 billion a year on a complete hoax? Wow.