This is probably not the best source to assess the air to air capabilities of the Harrier. As soon as one of comments in your post stated that the Harrier could eat anybodies lunch is a 2 circle fight you should see that these people don't have any personal knowledge of air to air combat.
From personal experience I can tell you that the Harrier does not have a magic move. I've flown against Harriers both as a fleet Tomcat pilot and as an adversary pilot. They aren't that tough to beat.
Back to the original discussion of STOVL vs. CSTOL carriers....A look at the Falklands crisis shows how limited those aircraft were. STOVL carriers had a small number of Harriers and helicopters on them. They had no tankers, no fixed wing early warning or ASW aircraft. For early warning they had a strap on radar for their helicopters. A small carrier or cargo ship with a landing pad on it does no have the capability to launch a sizable strike and can barely man a reasonable air defense. In addition cargo carriers have no ability to defend themselves, make big targets, and lack the crews to handle damage control. Lack of power projection allowed groups of A-4 Skyhawks to attack the amphibious ships and surface combatants guarding them. The UK got lucky because the Argentine A-4s dudded a lot of bombs that hit UK ships.
By comparision a super carrier of that timeframe carried two squadrons of Tomcats (air to air only), Two squadrons of A-6's, a squadron of A-7's, 4 EA-6B, 4 E-2C, 6 S-3s, and 6 SH-3. A carrier battlegroup of that day could have mounted long range strikes into Argentine airfields for several days and then once air superiority was assured supported landing operations on the islands.
This is probably not the best source to assess the air to air capabilities of the Harrier.
***That isn't my source, it was corroboration of my point. My actual source was several articles written in periodicals such as Jane's & Aviation Leak in the 1980's, but I no longer have access to them. It is acknowledged on both sides of the debate that the kill ratio of the Harrier vs. F14 and/or F15 was 3 or 4 to 1. The scuttlebutt at the time was that it was as high as 10 or 12 to 1; that at the time it was a tremendous embarrassment to the air superiority fighter pilots, whose mission was to kill a minimum of 5 aircraft, primarily because the soviets in the 1970's had amassed a 4 to 1 numerical advantage in the eastern bloc with cheap, low-tech fighter jets; and that the F14/F15 pilots did an admirable job of knocking the number down but not reversing it during the exercises.
From personal experience I can tell you that the Harrier does not have a magic move. I've flown against Harriers both as a fleet Tomcat pilot and as an adversary pilot. They aren't that tough to beat.
***That's very impressive. You must have been one of those 1's on other side of the 3:1 kill ratio, which makes you one of the better pilots, most likely. But it does not change the acknowledged kill ratio of the Harrier versus F14 or F15 air superiority fighters.