The author is making a ridiculous argument. That is, (egoist) Al Gore, like Yasar Arafat, won the Nobel Peace Prize - not in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, or Economics.
In short, what the author should have done is argue how Gore's topic of "global warming" is not a current major issue in terms of Global Peace and thus irrelevant in the context of winning a Nobel Peace Prize.
I can do that, easily.
Gore's premise that climate change will increase the strains on international relations is incorrect.
Warming of the earth results in longer growing seasons, additional food yields, hence less pressure on populations stricken with famine and hunger.
Additonal food yields will produce more possibilities for alternative fuels such as ethanol from various sources, reducing our dependence on oil.....again reducing the international stresses that lead to war.
Therefore, global warming is good for peace and stopping it will promte war.