Where there's a need for immunity, there's a crime – Green climate fund looking to UN for diplomatic immunity protection from lawsuits.

It would allow them to pay anyone, including themselves, any amount of slush money anytime, anywhere. Crooks the lot of them.

“wattsupwiththat.com. Well worth a visit”
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/03/22/peter-foster-suzuki-vs-the-senate-whos-silencing-whom/
Letter to the editor:
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/03/23/fp-letters-to-the-editor-rural-ontario-to-protest-wind-projects/
Suzuki science
Subject: Re: Peter Foster: Suzuki vs. the Senate — who’s silencing whom?
I read with much satisfaction, your piece today regarding who I contend (and I will attempt to be charitable here) to be a misguided former drosophila investigator. If you check PubMed (national Library of Congress for all scientific publications) you will note Dr. Suzuki’s publication record consists largely of editorials and opinion letters.
There is of course a large amount of data contravening the anthropomorphic global warming theory. For any scientist to use words such as “denial” with respect to these matters of scientific investigation is to flagrantly violate one of the most sacrosanct principles of science-blind and unbiased investigation.
Dr. Suzuki has over and over demonstrated that he is incapable of dispassionately addressing such important issues as climate science. He is also uniquely unqualified in the area.
Your pieces do an important service to the public by demonstrating what I think are “abusive” and misleading statements by people like David Suzuki; people who are uninterested in science and preoccupied by politics and feather-bedding his (largely) taxpayer-supported existence.
Such soap-box politics masquerading as science may fool those not trained in scientific investigation, but there are many of us who see this man for who he really is: a shill for the left-wing ideology of social engineering and redistribution of wealth. There is meagre meat on the scientific bone of Dr. Suzuki, but much innuendo, half-truth and much outright fatty untruths.
W. Mark Erwin DC, PhD, CCRF Professorship in Disc Biology, University of Toronto

Is there no-one else reading this who finds it unlikely that the powers, money, and purview for this group would all be granted? The reference article seems to be full of loose language. To wit:
“But before it is fully operational, the GCF’s creators—194 countries that belong to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and who are also U.N. members—want it to be immune from legal challenges and lawsuits, not to mention outside inspections, much like the United Nations itself cannot be affected by decisions rendered by a sovereign nation’s government or judicial system.”
“…194 countries … want it to be immune … etc. etc. ”
Really?
They must have the mother of all consensuses. 194 countries agreeing to anything? Come on.
Enabling this monster is one thing. Did the representatives of all 194 countries vote for it, or was it a majority, or what?
Did their respective governments back them up?
Talking about $100 Billion is one thing; getting it another.
Don’t get me wrong. I hate the idea as much as the rest of you. I’m just skeptical that it has legs.

The UNFCCC and everything that has followed from it needs to be repudiated. Eradicate it all. don’t know how we get here but this cesspool is not reformable.

That is what politicians do: they exempt themselves from the laws they pass. That is what liberal utopianism is all about: people like Al Gore, Castro, Chavez and those who live in dead and dying Old Europe who know more than you about what you should think and do and have–i.e., people who live for the death of the last self-reliant individual.

Speaking as a retired criminal defense attorney, I have to wonder, what specific criminal acts the members of this NGO – remember? non-governmental organization? – intend to commit in the near future? No NGO is entitled to diplomatic immunity as diplomatic immunity is granted to the accredited official representative(s) of the governments of foreign nations. Rather like asking for a saddle for your giraffe, isn’t it? The United Nations is without any authority to grant such a request as that is entirely outside of its charter, even as grandly extended as that poor old document has become these days. It has never granted diplomatic immunity; that is a matter between governments. It has no authority to extend its version of diplomatic immunity to agencies or organizations which are not formal parts of the U.N. All very puzzling, but frankly on par with what I expect of such people in those organizations. In any event, the notion of granting prospective immunity from criminal prosecution to the members of any NGO is preposterous and invites the worst sort of behavior. Bad enough that some of these nominal members of the human race express a preference for the survival of any and all animal species over that of the human race; indeed, they regularly express or imply a preference for the survival of ‘their sort of people’ over that of the vast majority of the human race. Give them unqualified immunity from criminal prosecution for any future crimes committed by people whose published works include a desire to see a sharp decline in human populations by whatever means necessary? Ask us to commit suicide, why don’t they?

Ditch them all – GCF, UN UNFCCC, IPCC. No one is above accountability when they’re on such a massive gravy train.