"similar statement was made about methane. I revised using ""widely considered"" and ""purported"" to be consistent with the idea of making the statements less absolute. I recognize weasel wording dilemmas, but seriously, this accurately portrays the qualitative information without misleading.  
Not necessary. The ""debate"" over global warming is long over. The ""debate"" was a farce created by the people who wanted to pretend that it didn't exist. There is no reason to cater to them. It's an insult to honesty and good science.  

If we're talking about this part:
It is the largest single source of fuel for the generation of electricity world-wide, as well as one of the largest sources of carbon dioxide emissions, which is considered the primary cause of global warming. Coal is extracted from the ground by coal mining, either underground mining or open pit mining (surface mining).
Then I don't see a problem with the global warming statement (except ""is considered"" isn't specific), but saying it is ""one of the largest sources"" is a weasel approach and sounds uninformed.  I will try to improve. - (talk • contribs) 

Amount of coal remaining
""At the current global total energy consumption of 15 terawatt,[30] there is enough coal to provide the entire planet with all of its energy for 57 years.""  This sentence is not supported, and ignores the growth in coal consumption trends, and is therefore unencyclopedic. Please support it per WP:RS or it will be removed shortly.   
Actually the only reason it is there is because someone else had the questionable statement that coal could provide the entire planet with all of its energy for 600 years, which was based on the typographical error that has been fixed. Feel free to remove. The source was simple arithmetic of the numbers given.  

support for 57 years:  Goodell, Jeff.  Big Coal. Houghtom Mifflin Co. Boston, 2006  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.195.244.104  21:07, August 21, 2007 (UTC) 
Page number?  

""by country"" articles
Are the any articles that break up coal power by country like we have for renewables and nuclear? - (talk • contribs) 

 largest source of carbon dioxide 

since when was this true. Oil and it's bi-products exceed by far any other source of energy when it comes to CO2 emmisions. Someone needs to change that statement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.149.235   
The article does not say anywhere that coal is the largest source, it says it is one of the largest sources. Coal and oil are so close to each other that it is not easy to definitively say that either is the largest. Coal is also increasing much faster than oil, which is likely to be declining soon, if it hasn't already begun to decline.  

 Question about units 
The article sometimes measures coal consumption in tonnes (metric tons, one tonne = 1000 kg) and sometimes in tons, which could be either the short ton (2000 lb) or the long ton (2200 lb).  (See the section, ""Coal as Fuel"".)   Is this change intentional or simply a typo?

 

 Chemical Formula 

Should we add a chemical formula on the page? I couldn't find one. I'm not quite sure of what it is, but I know it has Hydrogen and Carbon in it for sure. §  § 

 Reversal Trends in the United States 

Would be a good subsection, as coal plants have been rejected in Kansas and (I think) Washingto