Do you really want to turn this into another global warming thread?
I don't see that the "debate," as it were, is about global warming, but rather a case of asking the valid question of what Gore's global warming crusade has to do with the promotion of peace? As someone noted, it would seem more fitting for him to receive a Nobel for science, but then we'd have to debate the scientific validity of his assertions, and then it would become a global warming debate. There have been some who have alleged that this is why Gore was awarded the Peace prize rather than Physics, because his assertions do not hold up to scientific scrutiny. But that's a separate debate from talking about what An Inconvenient Truth has to do with the promotion of peace.
For some years now, my own opinion has been that the people giving out the peace award nowadays are a bunch of elitist Euro-flakes, and that the award lost relevance a good while ago. (I'm speaking of the peace prize specifically, not physics, literature, chemistry, medicine, or physiology, although I do have my suspicions about the people who choose the literature laureates).