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.
I said I didn't know what you were talking about. That's it. Where I did say you were wrong, you were.
"Pre-atomic chemistry had a multitude of theories on why elements bonded."
They're not theory, they were erroneous hypothesis.
"These theories worked and were testable"
None did.
"It turned out however, that the theories on why and how the elements were bonding were wrong."
You wrote this after I told you what a theory was. You still have failed to grasp what the word means, because you're still using the word improperly.
"Likewise pre-DNA biology had many theories on cell reproduction. "
Ditto, improperly!
" Absolute hog wash. Climatologists don't know why the last ice age occurred, or why we came out of it."
Irrelevant. The theories regard the physics, not a model of an event, or the details of any particular event at all.
"Which one has been validated?"
Thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, those in fluid mechanics... ect.
"the data points in mechanical, electrical, and aeronautical science are rock solid compared to climatology."
data points? The physical theories are the same!