See the official full text of the Copenhagen Accord for yourself

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf

Key parts in my view:

2 degrees C:  We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and as
documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold
the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective
consistent with science and on the basis of equity.

Memorializing rich country specific reductions: Annex I Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economywide emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted in the format given in Appendix I by Annex I Parties to the secretariat by 31 January 2010 for compilation in an INF document.

Memorializing rich country specific actions: Non-Annex I Parties to the Convention will implement mitigation actions, including those to be submitted to the secretariat by non-Annex I Parties in the format given in Appendix II by 31 January 2010, for compilation in an INF document, consistent with Article 4.1 and Article 4.7 and in the context of sustainable development. Those mitigation actions in national communications or otherwise communicated to the Secretariat will be added to the list in appendix II. Mitigation actions taken by Non-Annex I Parties will be subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification the result of which will be reported through their national communications every two years.

Copenhagen Green Climate Fund $30 billion then $100 billion: The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 to 2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation.

Copenhagen Green Climate Fund: Copenhagen Green Climate Fund : The collective
commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and
investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 – 2012
with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation.'

1.5 degrees C: We call for an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by
2015, including in light of the Convention's ultimate objective. This would include consideration of
strengthening the long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the science, including in
relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius

Comments

[Fran Manns]

What the ego geocentric believers always miss is a subtle study from Denmark. Two geophysicists (Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991) found a 95% correlation with sunspot peak frequency, cooling, and heating. When the peaks are farther apart, all the planets cool and when the peaks are closer, all the planets warm. It is such a strong correlation that the editor of Science magazine said, “now the ball on anthropogenic global warming is in the other court”. published in Science in 1991, it is such a strong correlation that AGW was held at bay for four or five years and came back with “Correlation is not causation.” George Monbiot of the Guardian attempted to debunk the study by reversing the effect, and citing the conclusion as false. He could be just in error or worse. That column has been deleted from the Guardian archives. Variation in heat output, however, is a red herring, only varying in the fourth significant figure and probably has nothing to do with it.

The sunspots are simply a proxy for the sun’s magnetic shield that shields earth too. In a sunspot minimum, the shields are down and cosmic radiation (iron nuclei mostly) bombard the earth and seed the clouds. Experiment supports solar causation. Successful cloud formation has since been subject to experimentation by the successor scientists at the Danish National Space Centre.

The Danes now have international support and an experiment scheduled for the Hadron Collider soon. I cannot wait to see if there is more support for the sun in global warming. It is a variable star. It is not the heat, it is the humidity… precipitation in the form of ice and snow and changes in reflectivity are huge as is the cooling effect of evaporation. I have just exceeded my safe zone of knowledge on the subject. Speculation for me is that the centre of gravity of the solar system (Sun-Jupiter centre of mass) has a pronounced wobble and controls the magnetic behaviour of the sun.

Toronto, where I live, is particularly sensitive to the magnetic (sunspot) cycle because the Great Lakes Basin is a huge cloud chamber. The rainiest summers on record were in 2008-9. The previous rainfall record was during the sunspot minimum of 1986, a 22-year cycle low. 22-year cycles are more pronounced than the 11-year cycle for some unknown reason. Every 22 years the magnetic poles of the sun shift. Right now is mysterious because they are horizontal instead of parallel to the rotational pole. Maybe we are stuck mid-flip.
The Medieval church squashed the Galilean proposal for the earth following the sun; now it is the church of the environmental lobby groups. I am choosing my words carefully because we are all environmentalists.

[joltinjoe]

The 2 degrees Celsius reduction of global temperatures is not within the province , much less the grasp, of governmental decrees. The average global temperature is so little affected by emmissions that one solar falre or one volcano eruption can skewer the results for decades. This whole "Accord" is really just imaginary. It cannot be affected by political decisions which, in the end, are purely for current political gain. Now you know!

[Streetcar]

It is no secret that the CRU maniputlated the data to complete IPCC AR4. I agree we still need to work on improving emissions by why Cap and Trade.

This is a tax grab and windfall for the financial insitutions selling carbon credits. Find another method. Why should the ordinary tax payer be forced to help out the banks