Yep, it's pretty bad.
Woodmorappe responds to Morton.
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_jw_02.asp
Woodmorappe on National Geographic
http://www.trueorigin.org/natgeo_jw01.asp
That's really interesting. It's always assumed that there are virtually no conflicting data for dating methods but it looks like the verification data was cherry-picked to give the expected results. He even mentions the assumption about closed systems, which is a central point to the whole discussion.
But here's the sentence from the article that really sets off the evos: "Who was there when the universe or Earth formed?" Doesn't he know we aren't supposed to even ask this question? ;-)
Woodmorappe is a crank. The fact that he apparently can't (or refuses to) understand the difference between the edge of a statistical distribution of isochrons and the mean values that actually determine radiometric ages shows that his "34 billion year age date" claim is total garbage.
Another funny claim in your favorite reference source is that oil deposits are dated at only a few thousand years old, when it is in fact well-known that fossil fuel sources are often contaminated by 14C as a secondary decay product (part of the reason that this technique isn't useful at all on materials over 50,000 years in age).
Hint: you might want to get some better sources, ones that are actually peer-reviewed by other scientists in the field, or actually rely on such sources. The fact that Woodmorappe can only get this material published in his own books and blogs should be clue, here.