Newtonian physics is a special case of General Reletivity in regions of space with a low energy density. IOWs the space is flat, so the equations of GR reduce to Newton's. They do so, because the curvature is so close to zero, it can be ignored.
"pre-atomic chemistry... pre-DNA cell biology"
I have no idea what these mean, but obviously they did not involve theory.
"All of these were solid, based on what was known, until something previously unknown was added."
The only "solid" one you gave was Newton's theory, which survives in the limiting case of low energy density space, where the space is flat. Notice that the old theory survives as a limiting case, as I said. That's
" Climatology has the weakness of being unable to validate its theories."
Wrong. The theories involved are well validated. Any weakness involves modeling. That involves making sure the model is an accurate representation of the reality modeled.
"There are two uses of the word theory; a supposition which is not backed by observation is known as a conjecture, and if backed by observation it is a hypothesis."
Wrong in both cases. A theory is a hypothesis with a mathematical formulation, supported by observations. That is the only meaning of the word.
"Climatology's observations are in fact so weak given the breadth of what is known to be inaccessible, that climatological theories can't rise above supposition."
Wrong. You obviously don't know what's involved, let alone understand it. The only problems that could arise are the accuracy of the model, or your failure to know and understand the statistical nature of the model's results.
"I like testable theories and reproducible results, if I'm going to change my life based on a theory."
You didn't know what a theory was. I posted what it is. You'll have to grasp it, before you can go any further.
The only "solid" one you gave was Newton's theory, which survives in the limiting case of low energy density space, where the space is flat. Notice that the old theory survives as a limiting case, as I said.
You admit you don't know and then you immediately tell me I'm wrong. Perhaps when you don't know you should read up instead of sticking your foot in it. Pre-atomic chemistry had a multitude of theories on why elements bonded. These theories worked and were testable, except as time passed special cases arose where they did not, for these special theories were then used, which made it work. Much like Einstein's theories fixed Newton's problems. It turned out however, that the theories on why and how the elements were bonding were wrong. Likewise pre-DNA biology had many theories on cell reproduction. What do you think went on in biology between the discovery of the cell and the discovery of DNA? Do you think biologists were just happy sitting around waiting for DNA? Again, there were multiple theories on cell replacation and how growth was road-mapped. To a greater or lesser extent these theories worked, until new knowledge pushed them aside. Like pre-atomic physics, they were NOT simply built upon.
Concerning not being able to validate climatological theories:
Wrong. The theories involved are well validated.
Absolute hog wash. Climatologists don't know why the last ice age occurred, or why we came out of it. Yet you think they can validate their theories. Which one has been validated? The only possible testing they have is computer modeling, which isn't shown to work on any observable time period even for much smaller areas. I doubt that you would fly in an airplane that had never been flown, never had a systems check, never been put in a wind tunnel, but had passed computer modeling. And that's not even a fair comparison, because the data points in mechanical, electrical, and aeronautical science are rock solid compared to climatology.