Thank you for pointing out the facts about nickel. You're clearly intelligent, so I have to throw this out to you after reading the rest of your post.

Does science exist? Or is it, like art, a matter of opinion?

If it exists, is it valuable? Does anyone want to argue that science is not valuable?

If science exists, and it is valuable, what determines what "true" science is? Is it what most scientists most knowledgeable about a particular topic agree to? Or does the opinion of one scientist, or two, or three, override the hundreds of other scientists who all agree with each other. Are some scientists better qualified to speak on a topic than others?

Answer these questions for yourself, and then research accordingly. This is an important topic; you shouldn't just shrug your shoulders, or spout a hunch.

If you think as I do (and I know you may not), you will agree that science is not a matter of mere opinion; it is important; and that if the vast majority of the best scientists agree on a matter of science, that is what you should use as your working hypothesis. Is it possible the majority is wrong? Sure. Do you want to bet the future of your children and grandchildren on the majority of the world's best scientists being wrong about a matter of science? Not me. Boy, that opens a can of worms, if our best scientists are unqualified to discuss science.

Every single recognized association of scientists that has offered an opinion on global warming agrees that it is happening, and it is caused by human activity. (This was not the case when "Global Cooling" was picked up by the media lo these many years ago -- not a single recognized entity endorsed it, they just mentioned it as a theory under consideration.) Not a single officially recognized association of scientists has issued an opinion denying human caused global warming, although some individual scientists have, and get a lot of press for it. No scientist I know of has flipped from believing the consensus to not believing it. Many former skeptics have now become convinced of human caused global warming.

In truth, many scientists after this last year are very frightened that it is happening much more quickly than they had anticipated. What they thought would happen in our grandchildren's time is happening now. There are many indications that governments are rearranging their policies, not just their rhetoric, to account for it -- Russia claiming the arctic sea bed by launching deep water subs there, Canada building a deep water port in the formerly permanently frozen Northwest Passage to assert its sovereignty, the U.S. finally acknowledging global warming as fact, etc.

Make your own judgment. But as Green Day says, "make sure you do it wise." My children are counting on you.

I could post a million links, but here's one that's quite pertinent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_consensus

I guess one question, or two: if you don't believe the consensus opinion of the best qualified scientists on a scientific question, on what do you base your opinion? And do you use the same approach when seeking medical care?

I recently watched a DVD about the GM EV1 electric car with the title "Who killed the electric car." I, and I suspect many others, had or still have, the misconception that the Prius was the first practical car to use electric power. It is well worth a look, if you can't get the DVD try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ev1

Imagine recharging your electric car partly from your home solar panels!

Regarding Nickel, Stainless steel contains somewhere between 5-10% Nickel, not to mention a fair whack of Chromium, and there are tons of it being produced all the time. So I have trouble believeing that the Nickel life cycle for batteries is a problem that can't be managed. If it is, it won't go away by avoidance of Nickel using batteries.

I'm all for conservation of energy and the environment, but despite what television, radio and papers tell me, I am still not convinced that climate change is in fact a problem. It just seems there is way too much propaganda and a kind of 'hysteria' surrounding the whole topic. Could governments and oil producers have too much to gain by repeatedly telling the world that there is a waste problem? Even better if the audience eventually repeats the mantra. Could the end game be to have all believe that hydrocarbon prices NEED to be increased (even if artificially through profit and taxes) to slow down all of us unrepenting consumers, especially those Hummer drivers. Feel free to blast my opinion, but please also provide links to web pages with some facts to back it up.

(To get the full story, read "The Prius that Shook the World." It's available in pdf format from several websites.)

As Jeff correctly notes, Toyota estimates that it takes 12,000 miles to amortize the additional energy required to create and dispose of the Prius - and that's relative to a conventional 2 liter car, not a Hummer.

Fortunately, the market will provide clarity. If hybrids are indeed much more energy-intensive to build, then rising energy costs will cause hybrid prices to rise faster than conventional car prices. If they do not, then we know the study was mistaken.

Incidentally, the Prius battery is warranted for 10 years/150,000 miles in some states (including California). No sane manufacturer warrants a part they expect to have to replace. In fact, Toyota expects the battery to last the lifetime of the car, and in 10 years of production, that seems to be the case.

The Prius consumes a very small percent of the nickel from the factory which you describe which had been in production for decades before the Prius was invented. Anything with stainless steel and a host of other products contains nickel.

The nickel batteries have an expected life of only 6 years and will require a complex recycling process (a clear area for investment growth).

I don't have the all the information on the lithium battery atlernetives being developed by Ener1 http://www.ener1.com/ and possibly others but you can do your own reading.

Currently and in the near future, small turbo diesels like the Fiat Punto offer similar economy to a hybrid but with less complexity and expense. The problem with this option in Australia that diesel is taxed much more heavily than other fuel alternatives.

NOT 10 years (unless you drive 1,200 mi/year)

The Prius has a very damaging battery. It uses nickel which is mined in Sudsbury, Ontario at one of the largest nickel plants in the world, the superstack. The area around the plant resembles a desert, after years of acid rain has killed off any vegetation.

Hybrid parts are expensive and unique and require their own production lines. The amount of software and technology development for the battery and engine control system that goes into a Prius requires months of development and labor. The life of the car is fairly low compared to other cars too.

The man-made climate change discussion is IRRELEVANT to gluttony and waste as represented by HUMMER.
Warming or not the world is finite and wasting precious little of clean air left on these discussions or hummers is shameful.