Will the Australian Academy of Science statement help?

As a couple of answerers noted, and as Ottawa illustrated so nicely, nothing will convince denialists that AGW is correct. That's why they're denialists. You could build a time machine, take them into the future, show them that the planet indeed warmed 5°C by the year 2100, have all remaining future humans tell them the warming was anthropogenic, and they still wouldn't believe you.

That being said, for truly open-minded people who want to learn about the subject, this is a very good summary. It debunks a number of common myths, like 'volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans' and 'the Sun is causing global warming', and does so effectively in clear language with a lot of links to primary scientific sources. And of course it also discusses how we know the warming is anthropogenic, though personally I would have added some key 'fingerprints' like the cooling upper atmosphere, which I didn't see in there.

http://www.greenoptions.com/wiki/fingerprints-of-h...

If I was talking to a person who was capable of understanding basic science and was interested in learning about the subject, I think this would be a very good resource to point them to.

I think this a great report in that it breaks down the science in a way that even a non scientist could understand.

This would be a great resource for high school science class. Heck, I may even use this. Especially since young people aren't going to be so closed minded and most young people don't have money in coal/oil stocks as far as I'm aware!

Unfortunately it is not completely dummy proof, as you can see.

I don't think it will change anybodies mind if they have it made up already. Most climate deniers are stubborn as mules.

"And do you think it will go anyway to convincing skeptics/deniers of the science behind climate change?"

No, I'm afraid it will not. Reality and empiricism mean nothing to an ideologue. Whenever presented with the harsh truth a denier will always seek comfort in their ignorance. Their eyes and ears are closed to understanding because they imagine they will need to make sacrifices for someone other than themselves, no matter how insignificant that sacrifice may be. To these people empathy is a pejorative.

This is the glossiest brochure I have ever seen regarding climate change. There very little science in it since it is simply a summary of what the authors believe is the current state of climate knowledge. There is nothing new.

Page 16 seems to be the conclusion or summary. It really doesn't say anything at all. And the following statement I find to be completely unsupported: "...there is a chance that climate change will be less severe than current best estimates, but there is also a roughly equal chance that it will be worse." That's simply a definition of what a best estimate means. And even that's a sketchy definition since probability is not always linear.

So in answer to your last question, no it will not be convincing to any skeptic. Skeptics do not dismiss the science, they simply embrace the uncertainty with more objectivity than those who are fully convinced. And unfortunately, it's hard to have a discussion with someone who has already made up their mind.

No,

Both major parites in Australia won't talk about climate change except in a negative way. Taxing carbon and throwing money at green schemes has become a political liability and nobody wants to be associated with it. Even the Greens seem more concerned about homosexual marriage.

The issue is dead except for some university campus groups.

Deniers will continue to deny and most people don't care. Remember on Saturday: Vote 1 Green

It will do nothing. They will continue to dismiss the science like they always have...that is what makes them deniers.