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.

[Q]: LONGMONT, Colorado (CNN) -- A Colorado solar-energy company has high hopes for the economic stimulus bill that President Barack Obama will sign Tuesday in Denver. AVA Solar CEO Pascal Noronha holds one of the solar panels his company produces. Obama touts that the stimulus bill will help create up to a half a million so-called "green" jobs in the field of alternative energy. Colorado has a growing green energy industry. Executives of AVA Solar, based in Fort Collins, Colorado, are among green energy industry representatives invited to the bill signing. AVA Solar has its plant in Longmont, about 30 minutes north of Denver. The plant, set to begin production in the spring, will construct solar panels for solar power plants. Once production is up to speed, CEO Pascal Noronha says, the plant should create enough solar panels a year to power 40,000 U.S. homes. Noronha says AVA Solar needs two things: Government loans to expand its factory, and more government assistance to help power companies commit to building large solar power plants in the United States. iReport.com: What would you fix first? Noronha says those two moves would help AVA Solar create 1,000 to 2,000 new jobs in its factory, plus added employment for its suppliers. The company, founded in 2007, currently has 175 employees. Without the stimulus, Noronha said, AVA Solar is on track to create 420 new jobs by the end of this year. AVA Solar currently operates on $175 million in U.S.-based private venture capital. In 2007 the company also received $3 million in seed money from the U.S. Department of Energy. Noronha says Obama is on the right track in terms of the stimulus bill. "What everybody needs is a little seed money because five years from now there's no question [that] solar has to replace the oil that we import," Noronha says. "What the government needs to do is provide the traction that is needed to get the first few projects on the ground." "We need money from the federal government ... to facilitate production immediately," the CEO adds. "Otherwise, we will be sitting and waiting for projects in the U.S., and if we have to wait one year or two years -- when we're able to produce a solution for this country today -- that is a really good reason for the government to say, 'Here it is, let's go.' " Noronha says his company's biggest customer base is in Germany, a country that is far ahead of the United States in embracing solar energy. Obtaining U.S. customers is a priority, he explains. "As a company we would very much like to have customers here in the U.S.," Noronha says. "The government needs to be able to facilitate these customers by making it possible for them to put large-scale power plants up." Noronha is optimistic about the stimulus bill and the direction of the Obama administration. "If you look at the vision of the president, you know he is looking out in the future and saying we've got to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," Noronha says. "Well, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, there is only renewable energy. And there are two forms that are promising -- one is wind and the other is solar. And solar, you've got the sun's resources all over the world."
[A]: Solar-panel company has high interest in stimulus bill .
Creation of "green" energy jobs is among hallmarks of stimulus bill .
AVA Solar of Colorado says it needs seed money to expand, hire more employees .
Obtaining customers in the United States is a priority for the company .


[Q]: (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 .
[A]: 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 .


[Q]: (CNN) -- By now, we're on the same page that Mitt Romney's pick of Paul Ryan as his running mate contradicts a golden oldie of presidential election strategy -- run to the conservative (or liberal) base to win the nomination and then reposition toward the center to lure the more moderate independent swing voters who are necessary to win the general election. Ryan may be many things -- energetic, charismatic and geeky -- but no one familiar with his Full Monty conservative budgets would describe his selection as remotely moving to the center. Just the opposite -- Romney has doubled down on his move to the right during the primary battle. What gives? Did the looming prospect of defeat push Romney into a desperate gamble? Give Romney some credit. He's made a shrewd move. The Ryan choice adopts a strategy premised on supermobilizing the base and luring a smidgeon of others. Put on your thinking caps and grab an abacus, here are the numbers that could put Romney in the White House. Conservatives outnumber liberals 2 to 1 (40% to 21%). Rage against Obama has the GOP ready to walk over red hot coals to cast a ballot. A mainstay of Gallup's measure for determining who is likely to vote -- whether survey respondents are thinking a lot about the election -- shows not only that Republicans are more attentive than Democrats by 13 points but also more fired up than in recent presidential elections. To make sure they harvest the Ryan enthusiasts, the Romney campaign appears to be assembling an impressive operation to turn out the vote and to aggressively compete with the Obama team for the early vote. What makes the Romney mobilization particularly threatening to Obama is that it targets his biggest challenge -- polls consistently show him ahead but there are ominous signs that a decisive group of those supporters won't actually cast a ballot. Even with Obama's pro-immigration shift and the growing number of Latinos in competitive states, their actual turnout may flag from their record numbers in 2008. Less than half of Hispanics eligible to vote are registering and only 64% of Hispanics say they will definitely vote as compared to their 77% response in 2008 and the national average of 78% today. Ditto on youth. The percentage of voters 18 to 29 who say they will definitely vote in November (58%) is currently running 20 points or more behind the national average today (78%) or the youth turnout in 2008 (78%) or 2004 (81%). Blue collar voters -- never drawn to Obama (think Hillary Clinton in 2008 Democratic primaries) -- may desert him in numbers that approach the "Reagan Democrat" defections in 1980. This possible weakness in the Democratic coalition coincides with a bit more slippage among Obama's 2008 supporters (9%) than among McCain voters who won't vote GOP in November (5%). Bottom line: By picking the bona fide conservative Ryan, the Republican base is likely to deliver a rapturous response, which may allow Romney to succeed in exploiting Obama's greatest weakness at this point. Before you conclude this is far-fetched, think back to Karl Rove's strategy in 2004 to move right with strident social conservatism on abortion and same-sex marriage, steep tax cuts and hawkish policies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Embracing the base and scorning the rush to the middle cost George W. Bush the independent vote. But Bush also supercharged conservatives and Republicans, who turned out in droves. Refuting the conventional wisdom that Democrats do best in high-turnout elections, it was Bush who most benefited from the 16% jump in the total vote. But -- there's always a but. Even as Ryan fires up conservatives, he may also mobilize votes for Obama -- including senior citizens who reside in key swing states like Florida. Alarmed by his draconian proposals to remake Medicare, they may boost their support of Obama. Another potential risk: A good number of voters may be primed to punish the incumbent for poor economic times. Pluralities of Ohio and Florida independents report that Obama's re-election would hurt their personal financial situation. But the coming hullabaloo over Ryan's budget proposals may distract the economically pained from punishing Obama. All in all, Romney has a tough battle ahead -- even stringent counts of Electoral College votes based on polls show Obama within striking distance of winning. But using Ryan to ignite the Republican base is probably Romney's most plausible path to prevailing. And, it may produce a campaign focused a bit more on policy than on birth certificates, service records and the other side issues of recent elections. Strap in, folks, 2012 may be much more interesting and close than we'd imagined. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Lawrence R. Jacobs.
[A]:
Lawrence Jacobs: Mitt Romney was shrewd in picking Paul Ryan as his running mate .
Jacobs: Ryan can supercharge conservatives, who outnumber liberals 2 to 1 .
He says there are signs that Obama supporters won't actually cast a ballot .
Jacobs: Using Ryan to ignite the GOP base is probably Romney's best chance of prevailing .