So you post some vague criticisms of radiocarbon dating, mainly from the 1950s, with a few as late as the early 1970s. Have anything a little more substantive, a little more recent? I hate to break this to you, but in 2006 there is exactly zero controversy over the legitimacy of radiocarbon and other radiometric dating within the scientific community. Often scientists argue over dates and methods, but never over the validity of the process.
Actually, the many of the arguments I posted to are pretty timeless, because they address the simple fact that we don't know exactly what the environment was like back then. It is like estimating the speed of a man running through a bus, but not taking into account the speed of the bus and just assuming it is a constant. We weren't there back then.
Too many assumptions must be made to fully trust this dating technique. Is it accurate? For the most part, probably. But its results are still only deduction and opinin and not fact, which is my point. It is by no means cast in concrete.
Here is a government site that briefly discusses reliability: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc14C.html