I don't see specific mention made of GS in the text of the agreement itself [1]. However, the actual agreement is vague on implementation nuts and bolts, and there are lots of references to financing and financial transfers, with no hard boundaries on what is sourced from private markets and what is sourced from taxpayers. The banking industry openly talks about its central involvement in the agreement's execution if it passes [2]. There might be concern over financialization of the carbon markets the Paris agreement encourages the development of, because that might lead to a Potemkin climate agreement; we might have all the style with frenetic trading of carbon credits and derivatives of those credits, but no actual substance and no real world reduced carbon footprints in a timeframe that avoids climate change.

These are legitimate questions and concerns, and in an open civilization are ones that are transparently addressed and disseminated. Voltaire didn't say it even though many think he did [3], but we should apply the aphorism "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise". Regardless of the source of the aphorism or criticism, if the content standing on its own is true, then we address it if it hasn't been addressed before. So far, I see a lot of "why are you even questioning climate change" responses to questions about the agreement, instead of pointing to resources that address the questions about the agreement.

I've tried to look into the financial industry's involvement with the agreement and its implementation based upon the GP's comment about GS, and couldn't track down the source of his claim. But I've seen enough financial interfaces described by the agreement with poorly-specified sources and sinks of funding, risk management, and quality control that it gives me pause, without finding (or being referenced) more data.

That there are no quantitative standards for accounting for carbon footprints, nor Glass-Steagall-like regulatory controls on risk management for trading carbon credits, etc., makes me wonder if I'm not missing data to properly evaluate the agreement. If you believe that climate change is an Extinction Event [4], then that is hard to reconcile with placing the global financial industry in charge of or heavily influencing measuring, monitoring, valuing, and balancing global carbon footprints via its deep involvement via the agreement, when the same industry has demonstrated its structurally-built-in penchant for taking on outsized risks unless reined in by force (whether through personal risk or other means of force, and sometimes even force is not sufficient to override emotional trading).

Climate change discussion on whether or not it exists can be entirely separate from discussion over issues with the agreement. One can believe in climate change, and legitimately not support the agreement for problems they have with the agreement. One can not believe in climate change, and legitimately support the agreement for their own self-interest; a carbon credit trader, for example.

[1] http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf

[2] https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/banks-key-to-determin...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Alfred_Strom#Misattribut...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event