Ok, so who IS the 1% ?

I've heard anyone who makes over $500,000 yearly, and I've heard anyone with net worth more than 9 million.
Both of these seem a bit extreme to me... what is the real figure?

No, no, no.  You should have just quit while you were ahead.  All you have shown so far is the fallacy of argument from authority, over and over.  "Mann and Jones and Al Gore are smart and know stuff, so everyone should do what they say."

When they have an atmospheric model that can take 1990's climate data and predict current temperatures--not even weather, just temperatures--let us know.  They promise to be able to predict decades into the future.  Let them start with 1990 and predict 2010.  That's just twenty years, and that shouldn't be too hard, right?

This aside from the considerable technical problems.  For example, I don't know where I'd begin modeling average global temperature down to one tenth of a degree Celsius, because I don't know where I'd begin measuring average global temperature down to one tenth of a degree Celsius.  Do you take temperatures at sea level?  Do you measure temperatures higher up also?  Do you rely on satellite measurements only, going back a few decades only?  Do you need, perhaps, a very sensitive thermometer in every cubic kilometer of air in the Earth's atmosphere?  More?  If you do that, do you average them?  Or use a table of weighted averages?  Who creates the table and decides on the weighting?  Do you measure temperatures only in urban areas ("climate scientists" love this one, see also "urban heat island effect"), or in rural areas also?  Never mind the Earth.  What's the average temperature of the county you live in, down to one tenth of a degree Celsius?  How would you measure it?  These are not trivial questions.  And don't bother asking Mann and Jones, their data and models are secret.  "Trust us.  We know what we're doing."

We don't know what we're measuring right now, nor do we have more than derived guesswork about the Earth's "average global temperature" fifty or a hundred years ago.  And on the timescale of just the existence of our species, much less the existence of complex vertebrate life or the existence of the planet, a century is not even one flap of a gnat's wings.  We have the tiniest thimbleful of hard data, with which "climate scientists" wish to fill the Grand Canyon with DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM.  And I'm not buying it.  Remember the null hypothesis.

When you look at the history of these people, one comes away with the distinct impression that these were angry spoiled children, furious with Daddy, who have been obsessed with the idea of proving that Daddy/America/Nixon/capitalism/Whitey have SINNED AGAINST GAWD AND NATURE and THE END IS NIGH.  Psychiatrists call this "l'idee fixe," the fixed idea.  "Pollution is causing a new ice age and you're all DOOMED!"  "No, wait, white people's sinful insistence on not living in mud huts is causing 'global warming' and you're all DOOMED!"  "No, wait..."

More Stephen Schneider quotes:

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989

"I readily confess a lingering frustration: uncertainties so infuse the issue of climate change that it is still impossible to rule out either mild or catastrophic outcomes, let alone provide confident probabilities for all the claims and counterclaims made about environmental problems. Even the most credible international assessment body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has refused to attempt subjective probabilistic estimates of future temperatures. This has forced politicians to make their own guesses about the likelihood of various degrees of global warming." From his article "Misleading Math about the Earth: Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist," Scientific American, January 2002.