Someone are still saying that radicals are known for thousands years, and this new etymology is not new at all. I have given a detailed discussion on this issue in the article “The proper perspective of this new Chinese etymology, http://chineselanguageetymology.blogspot.com/2011/05/proper-perspective-of-this-new-chinese.html” . In this article, I will provide more bibliography on this issue for your convenience.
In the article, “PreBabel (Chinese), http://www.prebabel.info/bab015.htm”, I discussed three points:
1. The current (traditional) Chinese character system (the 隸 書) was a revolution, not an evolution from the Oracle Characters --> Bronze Characters --> Large seal characters --> Small seal characters. The supporting evidence of this was the story of interactions between the 秦 始 皇 (Emperor Qin Shi Huang), 王 次 仲 (http://baike.baidu.com/view/201945.htm ) and 程 邈 (http://baike.baidu.com/view/97773.htm ). Thus, anyone who describes the 隸 書 with Oracle characters is the same as describing the human evolution with the facts of Neanderthal, and this is exactly what the "old school" is all about.
2. The greatest Chinese philologists did not know about this new Chinese etymology. The best example is about 王 安 石 (http://baike.baidu.com/view/2515.htm , one of the greatest philologist in Chinese history) and his book 字 說 (http://baike.baidu.com/view/420769.htm , which turned out to be a laughing-stock).
3. The greatest Chinese philologists in the 1930s were despising Chinese character system, viewing it as the feces and the shame of Chinese people. The following sites provide the evidences on this.
i. 近现代文化名人对汉字的诅咒 --- (http://www.tianya.cn/publicforum/content/worldlook/1/178259.shtml )
ii. 鲁迅欲消灭汉字 --- (http://www.kanzhongguo.com/news/12/04/14/447923.html?%E9%B2%81%E8%BF%85%E6%AC%B2%E6%B6%88%E7%81%AD%E6%B1%89%E5%AD%97%28%E5%9B%BE%29 )
iii. 郭沫若、蔡元培 等人的 ＂消滅漢字宣言＂ --- (http://www.cantonese.sheik.co.uk/phorum/read.php?4,73347 )
More detail on this, please read the article “李敖 與無知的 魯 迅, http://tienzengong.pixnet.net/blog/post/35566874”.
With the evidences above, if anyone still believes that this new Chinese etymology was known long ago and is not new, then so be it.