Yup

I was just thinking (as noted): Why did Gore win the Nobel Peace Prize? and lo another Australian blogger, though not that one, has reflected precisely the same puzzlement. Meanwhile the Committee have stirred up quite a hornets nest here and one particularly flush and well connected sceptic is preparing to flood the nation's schools with not one but two rebuttals of An Inconvenient Truth in film form: one a parody of the original, the other a straight response that is at least as contentious in scientific circles as the original it seeks to undermine.

This comes as the school governor who launched a law suit over the original film has 'sort of' won his case (thanks to a judge who has appeared strikingly sympathetic to the plaintiff in those parts of the judgement I've been fortunate enough to read) and had some part of his costs awarded to him. And this seems like a very partial victory, notwithstanding the chummy judge.

Well it seems there was a 'peace' argument within the case for Gore - by saving the environment we will avert the potential catastrophic consequences of many tens if not hundreds of millions of people more and more agressively seeking to move into parts of the global land mass less deprived and hard to make a living from than those they currently occupy.

So if you buy into us destroying or causing critical damage to our planet then you almost have to buy into Gore being a strong candidate for averting war and conflict which would be an inevitable consequence of large scale desperation driven migration.