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!
You claim to be a master of scientific definitions, but show no sense that you are misapplying them.
Tell you what, as you are so certain of climatology, take your money and go to Vegas when the December forecast for the next Hurricane season comes out. Place all your money on them being correct within a 10% margin of error.
I have a theory that you'll be walking home, and at least my theory is testable.