Carbon dating is being affected
Add to that the rather unscientific term "prove" and the question of the title can be seen, rightly, as something of a To give Scott some credit, though, his first task in the article is to dispel the "common myth" that carbon-14 dating has any bearing on measurements of the age of the Earth.
(To allow Scott the most beneficial figures for his arguments, let's agree for the moment to an upper limit of detection of ~40,000 years for carbon dating, and the more generous YEC timeframe of a 10,000 year old Earth (although many creation "scientists" tend to prefer the 6,000 year age).(Since then new radiocarbon standards have been introduced, such as the Oxalic Acid I and II standards, which were correlated with the original standard, and after that, standards such as the Australian National University (ANU) sucrose standard.() work using lake sediments in which carbon compounds are preserved, gave calibration data for the past 22,000 years and found that radiocarbon ages remained within 500 years of the magnetic ages.Stuiver also reported that C-14 concentration in the atmosphere did not vary throughout that long period by more than 10%.There's no mention of calibration data and correction factors in Scott's article, which might lead one to suspect that he's either totally unaware of them, or has deliberately omitted their existence. The various methods used to calibrate and correct C-14 dating make his arguments vanish into thin air.However, he limits his myth dispelling to correcting only the misconception that C-14 dating is used for age determinations of "millions of years", which of course it is not.
He also gives the correct reason for this, being that C-14 is a radioisotope with a half-life of ~5,600 years.
This still requires either a fourfold increase in the decay of C-14, or a fourfold decrease in its creation in the atmosphere or its intake by life forms.
Option one can be discarded as there is no data which suggests that isotopic decay rates vary except perhaps under extraordinarily extreme conditions, and such conditions would be deadly to life on Earth.
Correction factors and calibration data which account for varying ratios of C-14/C-13/C-12 are discussed below.
Scott presents some curious and generally incorrect, or at least grossly overstated, arguments to support his beliefs.
Given that one of these assumptions has since been revised, Libby (the pioneer of C-14 dating) and his team presented strong evidence for C-14 dating.