The OP has shown (in a deleted comment) that the IPCC has includes his argument in their calculation. IOW, there are enough deaths elsewhere to offset any benefit from reduced cold deaths.

No, that's not what the IPCC reports represent. They represent a politically directed conclusion. We know this because the summary for policymakers is written first, which dictates what the politically directed conclusions are. Then the overall working group reports are written; then the detailed reports that are supposed to feed into the overall working group reports are written. Which is exactly backwards from how it would be done if it were representing the actual science.

Also, science does not work by "consensus". It works by building models that make accurate predictions. The models we have for climate science don't make accurate predictions. And the models that are used to predict the impacts of climate change, which are not even climate science models but economic and sociological models, are even worse. In short, the actual science does not justify the alarmist claims that are being made.

But even if we leave all that aside, alarmist claims don't even correctly represent what the IPCC says. For example:

> The OP has shown (in a deleted comment) that the IPCC has includes his argument in their calculation.

No, that's not what the comment I deleted before shows. Since you are presuming to reference it because you apparently think it somehow supports your argument, I'll repost the direct quote from the IPCC AR6 here (Working Group 2, Chapter 16.2.3.5):

"Heat-attributable mortality fractions have declined over time in most countries owing to general improvements in health care systems, increasing prevalence of residential air conditioning, and behavioral changes. These factors, which determine the susceptibility of the population to heat, have predominated over the influence of temperature change."

In other words, humans adapt to changes in climate, in a way that reduces the impact of those changes on (among many other things) mortality. Which is nothing like the claim you are making.

Humans adapt, but those adaptions are often deadly. Mass migration is an adaption that kills people. Wars are adaptions that kill people.

Humans can adapt in decades, ecosystems need millenia to adapt, and humans are dependent on their environment.

It's not a conspiracy theory. You will find plenty of scientists who participated in the IPCC process and were disillusioned by it saying the same thing. I'm simply explaining why I don't accept the IPCC reports as scientific gospel the way you do. We obviously aren't going to reach agreement on that here.

That said, as I have already pointed out, you're not even correctly describing what the IPCC reports say:

> Humans adapt, but those adaptions are often deadly

What I quoted from the IPCC says nothing about these "deadly" adaptations. It describes humans adapting through the ordinary peaceful processes of life and economics.

> Humans can adapt in decades, ecosystems need millenia to adapt, and humans are dependent on their environment.

Humans adapted to the warming at the end of the Younger Dryas, which was a much larger change than what is expected to occur to us by 2100 and was on the same time scale (about a century), with Stone Age technology. The idea that we cannot adapt to this much smaller change with 21st century technology without suffering a catastrophe is laughable. And if the world would expect a fraction as much effort on actually helping to adapt as it spends on wringing its hands about impending catastrophe, the adaptation would be even easier. The 20th century saw massive restructuring of the economies of the world due to two World Wars, continuing industrialization, computers, and the Internet. Adapting to climate change in the 21st century should be a no brainer.

“Scientific consensus” has little bearing on truth. In Galileo Galilei's time, the scientific consensus was that the Sun revolves around the Earth (and this was not just the view of the Catholic Church, it was endorsed by renowned and accomplished astronomers like Tycho Brahe!) And yet it moved!

If you have blind faith in globalist institutions like the IPCC then there is nothing I can say to change your mind, anymore than I can debate the existence of God with a Catholic who believes the Pope is the highest authority on the subject. I wish you good luck with your trust in globalist authority, and if it is any solace to you: the massive deaths predicted by the IPCC will probably not occur. Though by the time that will be clear, the narrative will probably be changed to some variant of “we never said climate change was going to be that bad” or “it only didn't turn out that bad because of our decisive action”.

250,000 deaths by 2050 is massive deaths? That's about 5% of what COVID caused, and that's not generally acknowledged as mass death.

If this is your position, it's all the less reason to spend trillions of dollars on CO2 mitigation.

This methodology was not made up for this specific case. Overall excess mortality analysis is used in all kinds of contexts. For example, it is used to estimate the overall impact of COVID, for much the same reasons--because it takes into account indirect effects of COVID that would otherwise be very hard to measure. The methodology is not perfect (no methodology is), but it is the best we have for this kind of analysis.