I guess I had misunderstood, because your actual point was even less sensible than I had realized. You said, "[Climate scientists] using their powerful brains instead of their limited models — can give accurate ideas of what’s coming next".

So what you actually think is that climate scientists devote massive fractions of their lives to doing something superfluous because they can, in their heads, synthesize hundreds of millions of points of data and simulate a planetary-scale thermodynamic system with sufficient accuracy to capture chaotic behavior like extreme weather events?

Really?

The whole reason why climate modeling is hard is because it's way beyond what anyone can hold in their head, and it's very hard to intuit anything. And yet, models made in 2004 have been broadly correct about warming: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

It's not like the IPCC is a gate through which all scientific communication about climate has to pass. For instance, is Greenland's ice sheet going to melt? Are we gonna wait for IPCC AR7 to share new results? No! People just publish: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01441-2. And say what their results show: "we underscore that a SLR of at least 274 ± 68 mm is already committed, regardless of future climate warming scenarios" and "application of the anomalous 2012 melt year in perpetuity taken as a representative analogue for sustained later-this-century climate yields a Greenland SLR commitment of 782 ± 135 mm, which also resonates with expert judgement of metre-scale SLR under the unabated SSP58 future climate scenario". That is, Greenland's ice sheet is melting, and it doesn't look possible to avoid at least 11 inches of sea level rise, and if we don't get our act together quick, it looks more like two and a half feet from Greenland alone (within the next century).

The whole idea that climate scientists "know" things that their models won't show is profoundly and deeply anti-scientific. It is by incorporating the mechanism into models and testing our ideas--and having them come back confirmed or disproved--that is how we gain and increase confidence in our ideas. That is the point! Shortcutting that is not helpful; it's retreat from knowledge into superstition and opinion.

It's fine to cut out anything that unnecessarily impedes sharing of results--for instance, we should make doubly sure there are no prohibitions on presenting preliminary data at conferences; putting up a draft of results on arXiv or another pre-publication server is a good idea. Everyone gets to see what everyone else is up to, and can increase the rate of progress as they can build off each other, find new things to test, and so on.

But you absolutely don't cut out the part where ideas are tested ruthlessly against reality. Testing ideas against reality is utterly central to building reliable knowledge. That's slow, but critical.

In fact, what you're proposing is exactly what climate-denialists have accused climate scientists of doing all along.

No thank you! Let's leave it as a science.