Over the past year, I've often criticized organic farming and the lies with which it has been built into a strong political movement.   But why should you take some stupid blogger's opinions as fact?   You shouldn't.   But maybe you ought to at least take note of what The Economist and a nobel prize winning environmentalist have to say.   Among the more salient points, "Thanks to synthetic fertilisers, Mr Borlaug points out, global cereal production tripled between 1950 and 2000, but the amount of land used increased by only 10%.   Using traditional techniques such as crop rotation, compost and manure to supply the soil with nitrogen and other minerals would have required a tripling of the area under cultivation.   The more intensively you farm, Mr Borlaug contends, the more room you have left for rainforest."   How about this little diddy: "organic farming actually requires more energy per tonne of food produced, because yields are lower and weeds are kept at bay by ploughing."   Excessive plowing, of course, releases "greenhouse gases" stored in the soil.   But don't take my word for it.   Do your own research.   Start with this article.