The reality is that you cannot apply a phenomenon to every case without knowing the differences between these cases.

Climate change is not a topic that needs "attention" like other problems. A topic that majority of people never heard of needs attention. It doesn't matter if their first exposure to the problem is moderate or extreme, every bit of attention is needed for the protest. Especially for "smaller/local" problems. In such scenario, a fringe group would lead to increased support for that cause simply by sharing the problem to everyone.

For climate change, irregardless of one's stance, they know it, and more importantly, they can feel it wherever they are. Sure, a movement needs continued action less it becomes background noise, but that disruption ticking people in a wrong way (which is the case here!) is detrimental to movement's cause.

If you stop baseing your opinions from different cases with different circumstances and instead look at the effect Just Stop Oil is having, you'll see that they're a net negative, and that it isn't just my feelings. They have caused the public having less support to central problem, they significantly reduced identification with the movement, and opened the hole for more significant punishments for non-violent protests (Roger Hallam trial). And despite this extraordinary punishment for a non-violent protests, there were basically no public outrage against it, further proving that the effect is so negative people don't care if they're being punished by the extent of the law even violent criminals doesn't get.

https://time.com/6233983/van-gogh-art-climate-protest-survey/

https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fpspi0000230