here is an argument against it. 

His work has next to nothing to do with peace and does not fit with the Prize's own explanation of what is deserving of consideration, at least not at this juncture and I don't believe the award has never been given for possible but completely unknown repercussions that may or may not occur in the future.

The Darfur example of war through GW used by Time is weak at best.  Darfur's water problems come not only from a drought that began in the mid-70s but more significantly from a population explosion.  This drought was a normal climactic cycle for that area documented over previous centuries.  But with the increased population more and more arable land was needed for farming and this caused farther and farther widespread desertification effectively and literally running their agricultural system into dust.  The increased population not only of Darfur but also Chad was forced to move south into the best remaining farming land and when the rain fall for 1983 and 1984 was all but non-existent famine was unavoidable.  This is the pressure cooker that has existed there with sporadic violence for the past 25 years.  The farmers had grabbed every bit of usable land and barred herders from the north from using traditional routes to move their herds.  The it became a race war of southern African Darfuris vs northern Arab Darfuris and outsiders.  Civil war, not because of GW but because of population pressure and a despotic government both incapable and uncaring.

Gore has prevented no wars.  I am aware of no war directly or solely attributable to the cause he champions.  There are many other candidates who have met the criteria in far better fashion and who have actually had an impact on reducing armed conflict or saving those impacted by it - Martti Ahtisaari, Thich Quang Do, Irena Sendler, heck even Bono to name a few.

Further, the awarding of the Peace Prize to Gore is a roundabout way of saying his science is true.  That is still open to debate.  Dr William Gray, a world renowned meteorologist and one of the pioneers in hurricane forecasts recently gave a speech at UNC in which he said in part, "The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures..."We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was."   Other scientists are claiming we are within 15 years of a cooling phase and perhaps a mini-ice age whether by sunspot cycles, variations of oceanic saline levels or a combination of these and other factors.  He may be right, GW may be anthropomorphic, but to grant so prestigious an award as the Nobel Peace Prize ought to require a little more certainty of the true situation.  The science and literature awards are often given years to decades after the actions/accomplishments that earned them, thus giving history a chance to truly weigh their impact and worth.  This rush to give Gore an award NOW before we even know if he's right seems a bit premature and appears motivated by aspects other than a contribution to world peace.

These are my arguments against his winning the award.  I don't think these are petty as they either speak directly to the criteria used to determine worthiness for the award or to the question that remains open to debate about the actual validity of the claims he supports and the need for the perspective of time to weigh their relative merit.  How that makes me a right wing apologist, republican drone, or brainwashed by conservative arguments escapes me.  I suspect that those who wish to pigeonhole me as such reveal far more about their own partisan leanings and the blinders they wear but can no longer see.