What I got is a bunch of back-handed cartoon insults towards the groups the author dislikes.
Still nicely done though, and the pictures are great.
I think there is value in illustrating fallacies not merely in the abstract, but also by allusion to real-world examples—especially when the author's stated goal is to prepare his readers "to identify and avoid them in practice". For the most part, those examples are actual arguments I've encountered people make: that anthropogenic climate change must not be real because addressing it now could hurt the economy, or that Christianity is true because the Bible says so. Orthogonal to the ultimate truth value of global warming or religion, these particular arguments are objectively fallacious, and it is both fair and illuminating to call them out as prominent examples.
Maybe one could argue that the author is himself erecting a straw man by (for another example) lumping together UFO conspiracy theorists with the appeal to ignorance. However, one would have to show that (1) the appeal to ignorance is not actually representative of the kind of arguments most often put forth by UFO enthusiasts (it is, in my experience), and (2) that the author's objective with that passage was to discredit UFO enthusiasts, whereas I believe his objective was simply to demonstrate the fallacy of a specific type of argument which just happens to be most commonly employed (and which the audience will most readily recognize) in that context. Rinse and repeat for all the other allusions.
Great illustrations, though: yes, I think we can all agree on that :)
Ad hominem?
You over-sensitive liberals just need to grow a thicker skin...
I agree with grandparent for pragmatic reasons -- suggesting this book to a religious friend could easily be misconstrued by said friend as a back-handed insult.
Did you read page 42?
Excerpt: "... circumstantial ad hominem, is any argument that attacks a person for cynical reasons, by making a judgment about their intentions ..."