Al Gore never actually said the sky is falling but our modern day Chicken Little did make some pretty far fetched claims in his "award" winning film last spring.  Now the Nobel Peace Prize.  How propaganda on global climactic catastrophe, according to computer models that is, meets the criteria for this once esteemed recognition is anyones guess.  Here is said criteria, courtesy Rick Moran at The American Thinker  

According to the 1895 will of the Prize's founder, Swedish scientist Alfred Nobel, the Peace Prize is to be awarded,

"to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

If you care to read the whole thing ...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/10/al_gore_warrior_for_peace.html

So, when someone can connect those dots with any hint of coherence I will resume the aforementioned esteem for that supposed "award".  Until then it will remain in scare quotes since it really has become nothing more than a popularity contest as determined by a panel of Eurolefties.  And as with most lefties the more anti-American you are the more popular you are.

Give me a break. They gave it to Yasser Arafat, terrorist, strike one, Jimmy Carter, whose main contribution toward the above criteria was to ignore the American tradition holding that a former President doesn't trash a successor, strike 2, and now Al Gore, who at once both incites hysteria based on dubious science while accusing Bush of fear mongering on terrorism - - strike three you're outta here. 

As to the whole global warming debate, yes, it IS a debate, not settled science which, to my mind, is an oxymoron, count me among the skeptics.  Not a denier, a skeptic.  Personally I have two rather basic but serious reservations 1) the aforementioned models do not have cloud cover or movement variables factored in.  That seems so fundamentally flawed I didn't believe it the first time I read it, but, as they say, "you could look it up", and after the second and third verification I became a devout skeptic. 

Secondly, the measurement behind all this alarmism is suspect on several levels, but mainly on both the technology and placement of the measurement devices.  Moreover, those measurements are over a period of a mere hundred years, a literal eye blink in the scope of world history.  Yes the earth's temperature has risen a fraction of a per cent over the last 100 years. And???  I just need more than that to convince me, especially when that happens to coincide with all the human activities uberecogeeks hate so much, like the industrial rvolution, oil, cars, etc.  It just dovetails with their anti-capitalism, anti-globalism, anti-consumerism way too perfectly.   

99% of all human history was experienced before we developed the ability to record any of it.  To jump to such rash conclusions on spotty evidence and flawed computer modeling form only the most recent century just strikes me as more junk than science.   But I'm an open minded conservative, ready to be convinced otherwise.  

Meanwhile Camille Paglia, my favorite lesbo libertarian weighs in at Slate, in a similar vein

... The simplest facts about geology seem to be missing from the mental equipment of many highly educated people these days. There is far too much credulity placed in fancy-pants, speculative computer modeling about future climate change. Furthermore, hand-wringing media reports about hotter temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere are rarely balanced by acknowledgment of the recent cold waves in South Africa and Australia, the most severe in 30 years.

Where are the intellectuals in this massive attack of groupthink? Inert, passive and cowardly, the lot of them. True intellectuals would be alarmed and repelled by the heavy fog of dogma that now hangs over the debate about climate change. More skeptical voices need to be heard. Why are liberals abandoning this issue to the right wing, which is successfully using it to contrast conservative rationality with liberal emotionalism? The environmental movement, whose roots are in nature-worshiping Romanticism, is vitally important to humanity, but it can only be undermined by rampant propaganda and half-truths.

As usual, she nails it.  I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I keep good company.