In this task, you are given news articles and you need to generate a highlight, i.e., a short summary, with a maximum length of 10 lines.

Example Input: (CNN) -- Explorer Dennis Schmitt found an island nearly two years ago near Greenland. Fishermen pass by Greenland's Ilulissat fjord in this September 2004 picture. Such a discovery would usually elicit curiosity, even wonder perhaps, but it evoked mixed feelings for the explorer. The island was once thought to be a peninsula attached to Greenland by an ice shelf or a glacier. But such a large amount of ice melted, it revealed the distinct island. "I very quickly realized two things," he told CNN's Anderson Cooper during a visit to the island earlier this year. "One [was] that this was going to be significant because it was going to be an example of climate change." "The other thing was that it meant it was really happening. It wasn't a joke. It wasn't just statistics. It was really happening." He calls his discovery Warming Island. Many climatologists and scientists say arctic ice melt and other changes in the Earth's climate are the result of an increase in the world's temperature, a trend widely called global warming. Many global warming experts say the phenomenon, if unchecked, is capable of altering the world's climate and geography. In the worst-case scenario, experts say oceans could rise to overwhelming and catastrophic levels, flooding cities and altering seashores. Other scientists and observers, a minority compared to those who believe the warming trend is something ominous, say it is simply the latest shift in the cyclical patterns of a planet's life. Most of the scientific community believes that some warming is occurring across the globe and through some layers of the atmosphere. But why it is occurring and what that means for the future is scientifically and politically contentious. The Earth's temperature averages about 60 degrees Fahrenheit (about 16 degrees Celsius). The average surface temperature has warmed one degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the last century, according to the National Research Council. The temperatures were relatively unchanged from 1880 to 1910, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. They rose till about 1945, cooled until about 1975 and have risen steadily to present day. There are several possible reasons for the warming, scientists say. A change in the Earth's orbit or the intensity of the sun's radiation could change, triggering warming or cooling. The reason most cited -- by scientists and scientific organizations -- for the current warming trend is an increase in the concentrations of greenhouse gases, which are in the atmosphere naturally and help keep the planet's temperature at a comfortable level. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, for instance, has increased by 35 percent since the dawn of the industrial age, according to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, commonly referred to as the IPCC. The presence of methane is now 151 percent above pre-industrial levels, but the rate of increase has slowed in recent decades, according to the EPA. Meanwhile, nitrous oxide increased by about 18 percent during the past 200 years. Many scientists and experts who have studied global warming believe the increase is primarily the result of human activities, like the burning of fossil fuels, emissions from vehicles and the clearing of forests. "For the last 30 years, there's no way there's anything natural that can explain it," Stephen Schneider, a professor of environmental studies at Stanford University in California, said. "A vast bulk of the knowledgeable and honest community ... will say the science is settled and humans are at least a majority of the reason behind the warming," he added. Many scientific organizations share Schneider's view, ranging from the national academies of the countries that comprise the G8 to the National Research Council, the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union. But there are those who do not share his view, and among the skeptics is Richard Lindzen, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "We've suddenly taken to reading tea leaves," he said. "When we saw cooling from 1940 to 1970, we were proclaiming global cooling. Since then, there's been a few tenths of global warming, so we're proclaiming global warming." He believes the current warming trend is the result of natural variability, where a planet goes through phases of warming and cooling and the human contribution to it is minimal. "The Earth is always getting colder and warmer," he said. "It's always changing. In fact, this is true of any fluid-covered planet." Asked about glacial melt, which many observers point to as evidence of global warming, Lindzen said the way glaciers change and move are phenomena largely unexplained. "We don't know why, but it's perfectly clear that glaciers change even though the temperature is cooling at the place that they've occurred," he said. "What we're doing is cherry picking any event that occurs and then saying that's occurring due to global warming." Yet, for Schneider, it is a cause for concern and alarm. "We're already in serious melt, nobody can explain it. The models don't predict it," he said. "We don't know what's going on up there. All we know is that we could be triggering something really nasty." The greatest point of contention is the possible implications for future political and economic policies for the world's nations. The IPCC in February 2007 projected that if carbon dioxide levels doubled relative to pre-industrial levels, temperatures could rise between 3.6 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit (2 to 4.5 degrees Celsius) by 2100. The lower end of the range could cause more intense hurricanes, droughts, wildfires and flooding, Schneider said. The higher end could lead to the catastrophes commonly associated with the visions of Hollywood filmmakers. Uncertainties, however, plague such forecasts, which are based on computer simulations and models. The models contemplate factors associated with how the atmosphere, oceans and continents interact, all natural elements that have unpredictability intrinsic to them. "Exactly how much it's going to warm up, we don't know," Schneider said. "That it's going to warm up? I'd bet anything on that." E-mail to a friend .
Example Output: Earth has warmed one degree in past 100 years .
Majority of scientists say greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise .
Some critics say planets often in periods of warming or cooling .

Example Input: Washington (CNN) -- No decision has been made on whether to change the current plan to hold the September 11 terrorist attack trial in a civilian court in lower Manhattan, White House officials said Sunday. Last week, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other politicians expressed concern over the costs and disruption of holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four accomplices at a New York City courthouse. David Axelrod, the senior adviser to President Obama, and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday that Obama believes the trial should take place in a criminal court instead of before a military commission, as permitted for some terrorism suspects. However, Axelrod and Gibbs acknowledged that Obama and the Justice Department were considering moving the trial from New York City. "We've made no decisions on that yet," Axelrod said on the NBC program "Meet the Press." Gibbs, speaking on CNN's "State of the Union," also said the location of the trial was under discussion, but he expressed certainty that Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001, attacks, "is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker." Gibbs and Axelrod criticized Republican opposition to the plan to hold the trial in a criminal court, saying no one complained when the previous administration of Republican President George W. Bush put terrorism suspects such as "shoe bomber" Richard Reid on trial in U.S. criminal courts. "Now we have a Democratic president and suddenly we hear these protests," Axelrod said. "What has changed between now and then that would cause people to reverse positions?" Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, told the CNN program that the Bush administration was wrong to hold terrorism trials on U.S. soil. Instead, trials for dangerous terrorism suspects should be held by military commissions at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility where they currently are held, McConnell said. Obama intends to shut down the Guantanamo facility by transferring the roughly 200 suspects to the United States to stand trial or face indefinite detention, or to third countries. McConnell said Sunday he would fight that plan by trying to withhold federal spending for it. "'I think that will be done on a bipartisan basis," McConnell said of congressional opposition, adding that "whatever domestic support they had for this is totally collapsing." White House officials say the decision about any possible alternate sites to try Mohammed and the others will come from the Justice Department. New York police estimated that the cost to the city would be more than $200 million per year in what could be a multi-year trial and that more than 2,000 checkpoints would need to be installed around Lower Manhattan. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said additional protection would have to be deployed for the city, not just "the core area of Manhattan." Bloomberg initially supported the move, saying "it is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered." However, Bloomberg used different rhetoric last week when asked about a community agency's proposals to relocate the trial, saying he would prefer the trial be held elsewhere, perhaps at a military base where it would be easier and cheaper to provide security. "It's going to cost an awful lot of money and disturb a lot of people," Bloomberg said. On Thursday, several New York Democratic politicians urged the Obama administration to thoroughly re-examine locating the trial in downtown Manhattan. Julie Menin, chairwoman of a city community advisory agency, proposed four alternative locations for the trial within the Southern District of New York: Governors Island, Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh, the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and the Bureau of Prisons jail complex at FCI Otisville. The latter three are in Orange County, New York, less than an hour from New York City, county executive Edward Diana told CNN. Diana thinks the trials should not be held anywhere in New York, and definitely not in Orange County, which lost 44 residents in the terror attacks, he said. "I've contacted my legal department and I'll tell you I'll do whatever it takes to stop those trials from coming here, even if it means closing down our roads," Diana said. "I'll sue the federal government if need be." Diana said he'd be worried about the safety of Orange County residents if the trial comes there. Diana, who shot down an offer from Newburgh to host the proceedings in their new courthouse, said the suspects should not be tried in civilian courts. But Newburgh Mayor Nick Valentine said the boost in media presence and police funding during the trial would help his "very poor, very urban" city. Newburgh's new $22 million courthouse is safe and has "every security you could want," Valentine said. An alternate proposal at the West Point location has not been fully reviewed. A West Point spokesman said no one has officially requested a review of demands for such a trial, which would require in-depth study of legal and security concerns. U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman Dean Boyd said the Justice Department "can safely prosecute this case in the Southern District of New York while minimizing disruptions to the community to the greatest extent possible, consistent with security needs." New York Gov. David Paterson will meet with the U.S. Marshal Service on Monday to discuss possible 9/11 trial locations in the state, Paterson spokeswoman Marissa Shorenstein told CNN. CNN's Susan Candiotti and Ross Levitt contributed to this report.
Example Output: NEW: Orange County, New York, leader: Don't move trial here .
Officials: President, Justice Department considering moving 9/11 trial from New York City .
New York mayor concerned about costs and disruption of holding the trial in city .
New York police: Cost to the city would be more than $200 million per year .

Example Input: (CNN) -- Since the start of the financial crisis, the world's wealthiest man, investor Warren Buffett, has been front and center. Alice Schroeder says investor Warren Buffett has become a symbol of stability in American business. He's advised Sen. Barack Obama on economic policy. He urged Congress to pass the $700 billion bailout bill. He bought stakes in Goldman Sachs and General Electric. He wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times saying he's buying stock in American companies now because he believes they will do well in the long run, citing as his rule: "Be greedy when others are fearful." Buffett's name came up in the second presidential debate when the candidates agreed he'd be a good choice for treasury secretary. His fortune was estimated at $62 billion by Forbes in March. Alice Schroeder got Buffett's cooperation in writing her new book, "The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life" (Bantam Books). Schroeder, who worked on Wall Street as an insurance industry analyst, met Buffett 10 years ago when his company, Berkshire Hathaway, bought a big insurance company. Schroeder says she suggested he write a book about his life, and the 78-year-old Buffett turned the tables, urging her to do it instead. Schroeder estimates she spent about 2,000 hours with Buffett and interviewed 250 people for the book. Now on a tour to promote her book, Schroeder is in a unique position to speak about Buffett at a time when many media outlets are seeking his views. "I have about 300 hours of recorded interviews and the rest of the time I observed him, I watched him make decisions and talk on the phone, went through files. I got to sit in his office for weeks, I ate steaks with him," says Schroeder, who's 51. "If it ever said moo, he'll pretty much eat it. He likes his steaks bloody rare and hanging off the plate, they're so big." CNN: Why are people so interested in Warren Buffett? Schroeder: I think he's transcended business to become a national figure because of people's trust in him as a symbol of stability and a symbol of someone who knows how to manage risk and avoid catastrophe and of how to run a business on principles. CNN: Is there any realistic possibility of him taking a government position? Schroeder: No, none. What he really likes to do is run Berkshire Hathaway, and he's not going to let anything take him away from that. He's also not going to let anyone spend his day filled up with meetings or schedule his time, he's too independent. CNN: You make clear that in the 1990s tech boom, Wall Street turned away from Buffett and there was some criticism of him. Do you think that now, because of the market downturn, people will look to him more to set a standard of how the market operates? Schroeder: I think it's fair to say that throughout his career, every time there's been a bubble and it's burst, his reputation has grown. That happened in the 1960s, when the bubble burst in the 1970s, it happened again after 1987. It happened again after the savings and loan crisis. ... It happened again after the Internet bubble and it's happening now. CNN: It doesn't seem to have had a lasting effect, since we keep going back into another boom period or bubble. Schroeder: He would say that human nature doesn't change, and that fear and greed are always the two drivers of the market. And there are people who listen when he gives learnings, but that the market will always be ruled by cycles driven by fear and greed. CNN: Have you talked to him about the current market turmoil? Schroeder: Last spring, when Bear Stearns was being taken over by J.P. Morgan ... he talked about the dominoes falling, and how, if that happened, the government could face some very unpleasant choices and have to take drastic measures. With hindsight it looks really prescient. In 2002, he talked about derivatives as financial weapons of mass destruction. More recently, his observation was that there was a lot of anger and denial at first about what was going on, and that people were not quite grasping the gravity of the situation and how quickly and dramatically they needed to move. He always says, don't sell into a panic, don't let the fear and the emotions of the market change how you feel. If you own good stocks in good companies or you own an index of the markets, and you see it getting cheaper, that's a reason to be happy, not to panic and sell. ... The idea is buy low, sell high -- not buy high, sell low. He understands the factors that are burdening the country, the federal deficit, the consumer debt, the infrastructure spending that we're going to have to do, but he has a belief in American ingenuity which over the long term has enabled our country to solve problems that seemed insurmountable in the past. For example, in the 1970s, it looked like the country could not ever dig its way out of the mess. So he does have a faith in the long-term prospects of the country. CNN: Is he a gambler? Schroeder: No, he's a handicapper -- big difference. A handicapper is somebody who understands odds-making. A gambler is somebody who bets but may not even understand the odds. Warren believes in a margin of safety, he doesn't bet unless the odds are overwhelmingly in his favor. When he goes to Vegas he does not gamble, he goes to see the shows. CNN: What are his flaws? Schroeder: He is somebody who can be very tough in business and very impersonal, including with people he likes. And in personal relationships, he negotiates as if it were a business relationship . When he was putting Berkshire Hathaway together, as [his business partner] Charlie Munger puts it, he was an implacable acquirer. The book refers to him, in my words, as a great white shark, and the book describes the battle between his avarice and his higher principles. At times, his avarice won. And over his lifetime, it's been essentially a progress during which his higher principles have increasingly had the upper hand. But when he was in junior high, he was a shoplifter. He was a juvenile delinquent. He sold his sister's bicycle. It's been pretty much uphill from there, but it hasn't been a straight line. CNN: In his adult life, was there a time when his avarice won out over higher principles? Schroeder: Absolutely, he's made investments that he shouldn't have made, for example, when he invested in Salomon. He was criticizing Wall Street and saying if you want to make a lot of money, hold your nose and go to Wall Street, and at the same time he was already there. Berkshire owned $700 million of convertible preferred [stock] in a major Wall Street bank. And he was sort of mentally distancing himself from a business that he was invested in. That kind of separation is something that's very hard to maintain. And in the end, he had to become interim chairman of Salomon to rescue the firm. Psychologically, he was trying to distance himself from it because the two sides of him were at war. CNN: Is he still critical of Wall Street? Schroeder: You've got an economy in which financial intermediaries who don't add anything to the economy ... have in the past two decades stripped off huge amounts of fees, particularly buyout funds, and hedge funds and funds of funds, and he's very, very critical of the amount of fees that have been taken out. He has no problem with executive pay when it's related to performance. He thinks in most cases executives are being paid to sit in a chair whether they perform or not.  And he's pointed out that these people are not like major league baseball players, who get recruited away by other teams. When CEOs get fired and they get these golden parachutes, you don't normally see them winding up somewhere else, right? So they're getting paid these huge amounts of money as an incentive to stay and then they get paid the consolation prize when they get fired. The pay is always getting ratcheted upward, they're getting paid to incent them to stay and they're getting paid to console them when they leave, no matter what the shareholders are getting. It's not aligned with anything the shareholders get, that really bothers him. CNN: What would he say about coping with an economic downturn? Schroeder: That people should think for the long run and make their personal decisions for the long run and build a margin of safety into their lives as best they can. Think about what could go wrong. Don't assume the best-case scenario. If you've got debts, your first thought should be how to pay them off, and negotiate with creditors if you're struggling, because they'll usually be flexible. And be realistic about what you can afford, because having a financial cushion means you can sleep at night, and that's worth more than a big-screen TV.
Example Output:
Alice Schroeder: Buffett is viewed as a symbol of stability and safety .
Buffett's career is a battle between avarice and higher principles, she says .
Schroeder: Buffett's critical of high fees and high executive pay on Wall Street .
Buffett has faith in American ingenuity to overcome challenges, she says .