Record-breaking, early October snowfall in US midwest arrives just after UN IPCC geniuses (half of whose expenses are paid by US taxpayers) say we'll have less snow because of CO2 in China for which Americans must pay billions

.
10/5/13, "Record-breaking blizzard leaves more than 38,000 homes without power," rapidcityjournal.com,

"A record-breaking blizzard dealt the Black Hills a frosty blow on Friday night, crippling the region's power and transportation infrastructure.

Below are some key facts about the blizzard and its impact to the region:

• 21.5 inches of snow fell on Friday night in Rapid City – the highest single-day snowfall for October since record keeping began around the 1890s.
• The National Weather Service has recieved reports of 43 inches of snow in Lead and 48 inches in Deadwood....
• Plows are struggling to restore the streets of Rapid City because of the amount of fallen trees, immobile cars, and the heaviness of the snow. The city says it could take days to clear."... image above Oct. 5, 2013, Journal staff

=====================

10/5/13, "Storm paralyzes city of Sturgis, residents urged to stay home," Times-Tribune, Deb Holland

 image above, 10/5/13, Courtesy photo

=============================

Source for 2013 UN IPCC declaration of diminishing snow:

9/27/13, "IPCC Climate Change Report Expresses Extreme Confidence In Human Cause Of Global Warming," AP, Karl Ritter via Huffington Post

""Our assessment of the science finds that the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, the global mean sea level has risen and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased," said Qin Dahe, the other co-chair of the working group."...(parag. 15) 

==============================

2/19/11, The Hill reported US taxpayers give $12.5 million a year to the UN IPCC. The UN IPCC does no scientific research so this money is just for jet setting around and issuing orders that we must reduce our lifestyle:
.
2/9/11, "Republicans attempt to defund 'nefarious' global warming research group," The Hill, Josiah Ryan

==========================

In 2013, $13 million US taxpayer dollars went to the UN IPCC just from the State Dept.:

4/12/13, "Despite sequester, State Department ups support for the UN," George Russell, Fox News
 
"State Department contributions to “International Organizations and Programs” include a 30 percent hike, to $13 million, for the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose assessments of global warming have been sharply criticized by skeptics."...   
===========================.

GAO says no one knows the total millions of US taxpayer dollars given yearly to UN IPCC because agencies aren't required to report these contributions to congress. Also US gov. personnel hand it out in numerous ways, eg through the State Dept., NSF, USGCRP, etc.. Like a slush fund. US taxpayer dispersals to UN IPCC are in addition to billions automatically handed to the UN by US taxpayers each year:
 
1/3/12, "U.S. Taxpayers Cover Nearly Half the Cost of U.N.’s Global Warming Panel," CNS News, E. Harrington

"In a Nov. 17, 2011 report, “International Climate Change Assessments: Federal Agencies Should Improve Reporting and Oversight of U.S. Funding,” the GAO found that the State Department provided $19 million for administrative and other expenses, while the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) provided $12.1 million in technical support through the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), averaging an annual $3.1 million to the IPCC over 10 years -- $31.1 million so far. 

The IPCC runs an annual budget of $7 million, according to the Wall Street Journal, making the United States a major benefactor

• for its global warming agenda....

In explaining its reason for auditing U.S. funding of the IPCC, the GAO said, “Interest in IPCC’s activities increased after the theft of e-mails among IPCC scientists was made public (ClimateGate), and with the discovery of several errors in its 2007 set of reports.”... with “accurate and consistent information.” 

After facing “key challenges” in determining the amount of funding to the IPCC, the GAO now recommends that U.S. funding be reported annually to Congress with “accurate and consistent information.”

The report said documents on U.S. financing for the IPCC were “not available in budget documents or on the websites of the relevant federal agencies, and the

• agencies are generally not required to report this information to Congress.”

Conflicting State Department numbers also made it more difficult for the GAO to assemble the data. The GAO “reviewed documents and interviewed officials from federal agencies and IPCC” to reach its findings.

A 2005 GAO report entitled “Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More Complete” found that federal funding for climate change was not adequately accountable. “Congress and the public cannot consistently track federal climate change funding or spending over time,” the report concluded.

The report also found federal funding for global warming had increased by 116 percent between 1993 and 2004, to $5.1 billion....The IPCC assesses scientific information, but does not conduct any research of its own.

According to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the United States “has made the world’s largest scientific investment in the areas of climate change and global change research” with

• a total of nearly $20 billion over the past 13 years....

An international body, the IPCC was created in 1988. Though thousands of scientists contribute to the panel, only 11 working members support the organization. Set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the IPCC is an “effort by the United Nations to provide the governments of the world with a clear scientific view of what is happening to the world’s climate,” according to its Web site. 

The organization has been the subject of controversy in the last several years when thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were stolen and released in 2009, and again in November 2011, on the eve of climate talks in Durban, South Africa."...

.