"Firstly you are intimating net positive benefit for human lives from global warming because of less lives taken by cold temperatures."

Nup. I wasn't intimating anything. I was outright saying that the science (you know, that thing you keep trying to convince yourself you follow) shows that in a warming world the decrease in cold deaths is vastly greater than the increase in heat deaths. That's it.

Is less people dying a net benefit?

"But the study does not take into account deaths from warming induced drought, or fires, or torrential flooding."

That's true. The study isn't about those things so it doesn't mention them. Big surprise!

But if I wanted to talk about those things I'd show you the papers showing deaths from natural disasters like drought, floods, fire etc have fallen by 99% since the beginning of the 20th century. But I don't want to inundate you with good news (which for you is bad news) all at once. Well maybe just one - deaths from drought have fallen from 77/100,000 at the beginning of the 20th century to 0.01/100,000 now.

"But you dipping into the good old trick of truncated trend lines to show “its not warming” is gold."

Well I didn't say its not warming, but if you can't deal with my actual views then make some up and pretend to mock the fantasy. The data shows there's a pause. That's all. I've previously explained to you the significance of a pause in regards to the models but clearly that went over your head or in one ear and out the other....or both.