Andreas, the simplest way to respond to you is that you are speaking from ignorance.
The data and use of it were statistically defended by Lambert Dolphin, a physicist and Alan Montgomery, a professional statistician for the Canadian government in Galilean Electrodynamics. They have never been answered in any professional publication, and they are still waiting! Here is their article:
http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkgal.html
Further material on the data and further work with it can be found here:
http://www.setterfield.org/data.htm
In addition, above you can see that the measurements of other 'constants' in the past few years show changes that support what Barry is saying. I posted some of those above.
Your comment about the error bars being too big shows exactly how ignorant of this you are. Check the papers and material linked a few lines above, please, if you are wanting to know instead of to rant.
An atomic clock CANNOT measure the speed of light because the speed of light is an atomic process which varies in lockstep with all other atomic processes; therefore using the atomic clock as a measuring tool is guaranteed to show all atomic 'constants' as truly constant. However when the speed of light is determined by any other method, its changes become obvious. It is this very change at our time, which has produced the Pioneer anomaly. Barry has just finished an article on this but the basics can be seen in his previous short essay here:
http://www.setterfield.org/accelanom.htm
The review on Talk Origins is absurd and Barry answered it here:
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_bs_02.asp
The ICR article is an embarrassment to ICR since Aardsma used a graph to 'show' Barry's work was wrong which was so out of proportion to the changes in the measurements listed that it did not appear there were any changes at all. It was like measureing daisy petals in terms of miles. If you look at the Aardsma graph and then look at the measurements in the original paper of Setterfield and Norman, you will see what I am talking about. The Aardsma article is nonsense.
In the meantime, going to the post two posts ago by you, please research wht the vacuum of space is. It is not nothingness. That is why I posted the material on the 'seething vacuum' which you evidently ignored. The Zero Point Energy is real, and is measured by means of Planck's Constant, h. Please learn what you are talking about before you start talking.
And finally, I will let you know, if you like, when the article is published.
Are people interested in Barry's work? We have been invited to speak quite literally all over the world; we get daily emails regarding his work; physicists come to see Barry from many different places and are often our houseguests for as long as a week as they spend time discussing material with Barry.
Yeah, people, and professionals in the field, are quite interested. It is just those who are so wedded to their own religious evolutionary beliefs that cannot believe he might not be a crackpot. But then, right now he is at least ahead of the acceptance Wegener got from professionals about plate tectonics. He was mocked until he died and never had the privilege of knowing that he is now considered a hero in the field. That happened in my lifetime.
I think it is fear that begets the rabid evolution defenders. Fear that God might be real, or might be right. Fear that they might be accountable to him. This was Huxley's driving concern when defending Darwin. He was absolutely against his life being accountable to anyone, and this is why Darwin had to be right. It had nothing to do with actual science. Most of evolution doesn't have anything to do with actual science to this day. That is why they are so hysterical about protecting it from any challenges. Real science can and does thrive on such challenges.