Demonstrations that someone is serially and incorrigibly repeating false statements are not argumentae ad hominem and at any rate should be taken seriously. It is true that such demonstrations at length leave no doubt that the person is a certifiable untruth-teller, but an inescapable conclusion is that the things the person is saying are untrue. I can't imagine how that is irrelevant.
"Argumenta." Mea culpa.
A lot of the evidence they cite is nit-picking ignoring the big picture. For instance, the Miller-Urey experiment is thought as definitive in the public imagination. Wells shows that the scientific consensus is that the atmosphere was not right to create amino acids as per Miller-Urey.
He's blasted for pointing out that the photographs of peppered moths in textbooks were staged. (They were and it was dishonest to do so)
Also, TO says: The strangest aspect of the book is the bizarre view of mainstream science Wells presents: The idea that a secret gang of "Darwinists" controls the teaching of evolution and uses coercion and deceit to suppress all disagreement! Does Wells present any evidence to support his claim of a Darwinist conspiracy that mercilessly persecutes any scientist who dares criticize the dogma?
I don't think there is any doubt that happens.