News of this is getting around pretty quickly, but if you haven’t seen it already:
P.S. Windschuttle states that, “there is a point beyond which such sub-editing practices cannot go, especially when dealing with an author’s discussion of the detailed content of several books and their footnotes.” I would suggest that perhaps verifying the existence of the author does not go beyond that point.
ELSEWHERE: Margaret Simons is continuing to post updates and it looks like there will be plenty of coverage in the dead tree media tomorrow. Discussion over at Larvatus Prodeo as well.
Marvellous!
Sounds like a nice cross between The Yes Men and The Chaser…
So why is this fraud a good thing?
and what does it prove?
Clearly it proves that global warming doesn’t exist.
First of all, it’s a hoax, not a fraud.
And it’s a good thing because it shows that Windschuttle has rules for everyone else and different rules for himself when it comes to using – and verifying – sources in academic writing.
Apparently, it proves that you really don’t have a sense of irony or humour.
It proves that Keith is more than happy to publish an article of abject nonesense merely because it adheres to his ideological beliefs. Much like you, Iain.
As well as what John said, it also proves that Windschuttle doesn’t demand the same standards of himself that he *claims* to hold others to. This is a hoax – Windschuttle is the fraud. The standard bearer of neoconservative history has been duped by transparent bullshit.
And as Quiggin pointed out yesterday, where did that second volume of “Pwning Leftist Historians” get to? That’s the problem with right-wing intellectuals – no work ethic.