It appears that the Nobel committee gave Al and the U.N. the peace prize on the grounds that

it wanted to bring the “increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states” posed by climate change into sharper focus

The theory being that if there’s more malaria, sea level rise, drought, hunger, etc then people will react badly and fight. The trouble is that Gore’s preferred policies will lead to a poorer, energy starved world. Far better, one might think, to tackle malaria, sea level rise, drought, hunger, and so on directly rather than by tinkering with the chemical composition of the atmosphere. As Indur Goklany has shown, we can do this for a fraction of the cost.

Lots more on this idea at globalwarming.org. In particular you might note William Nordhaus’ findings that while 3 degrees C of unchecked warming will cost the world $22 trillion in damages, Gore’s policies will cost the world $44 trillion in total.

So if global warming will lead to “violent conflicts and wars,” what would Gore’s policies do?