PS that AR5 report PDF doco is large and complex – my computer struggled with it and kept freezing. Probably that mucks up the word search function as well. I found downloading to disk then opening it worked better than reading it from an internet browser.

by the definition of most or all climate science denialist, the “hiatus” is either cooling or no warming

They will change the definition to suit their circumstances, denialists being masters of cognitive dissonance. As soon as anyone uses the term “hiatus” by any definition, denialists will take that as meaning whatever definition they want for “hiatus”.

“Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
The observed GMST has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Box
TS.3, Figure 1a, c). Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one third to
one half of the trend over 1951–2012. For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04°C per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11°C
per decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in NH winter. Even with this ‘hiatus’ in GMST trend,
the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST. Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST
trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce
it. {2.4.3, 9.4.1; Box 9.2; Table 2.7}”

That is not the hiatus the denialists are looking for.

Nonetheless, the point is the same, in reference to how climate deniers use the term, and that is what I’m talking about here. See Watts quote above.

Now, if you’d like to argue that the “Hiatus” of the last 17 years is NOT zero warming, but rather, is actual demonstrable warming and that is included in the “hiatus” then fine, I’ll by that. A slow down that is within the normal range of variation, much of which is caused by ENSO effects, is what we see. But I’m pretty sure climate science denialists are not likely to admit that.

Everett, perhaps, but not according to the IPCC’s own search engine. Please be so kind as to supply 40 or 50 citations for that so we can all be less stupid.

Yes, the last 17 years of temperature change produces a positive slope that is statistically significant.

“Despite the robust multi-decadal warming, there exists substantial
interannual to decadal variability in the rate of warming, with several
periods exhibiting weaker trends (including the warming hiatus since
1998) (Figure TS.1). The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–
2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade) is smaller than the trend
since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12[0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade). Trends for
short periods are uncertain and very sensitive to the start and end
years. For example, trends for 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996,
and 1997 are 0.13 [0.02 to 0.24] °C per decade, 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24]
°C per decade and 0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18] °C per decade, respectively.
Several independently analysed data records of global and regional
land surface air temperature obtained from station observations are
in broad agreement that land surface air temperatures have increased.
Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) have also increased. Intercomparisons
of new SST data records obtained by different measurement methods,
including satellite data, have resulted in better understanding of errors
and biases in the records. {2.4.1–2.4.3; Box 9.2}”

By their definition, the rate of warming is positive but reduced over a 15 year period 1998-2012. But, by the definition of most or all climate science denialist, the “hiatus” is either cooling or no warming. For example, quoting Anthony Watts, from earlier this month, “The Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, says Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville. “”

In my quick study above, I gave a 0.1 (out of just over 0.6) slope or less the denialist attribute of hiatus.