Climate-change has been salient for decades. Everyone who exposes themselves to the news-cycle is aware of it, and the attention people give to these protests i

Climate-change has been salient for decades. Everyone who exposes themselves to the news-cycle is aware of it, and the attention people give to these protests is through said news. It's redundant. People have mostly made up their minds, but through message discipline it's possible to convey interesting data and that could potentially lead to follow-ups, which at best inform voting preferences or consumer choices. These stunts make the papers mostly because they're rage-bait, and consumers get their 2 min of hate. To biased readers, protests like these or those that target average people reflect negatively, which backfires on the entire ostensible "point" of these stunts (as opposed to the actual purpose) because it can be dismissed out of spite. The broken record you hear is "protests are supposed to be inconvenient". That is not true. They're supposed to win hearts and minds, engender sympathy, as that is what builds traction. It's possible to use inconvenience for that, but it's on a gradient. Civil rights protests were effective, but no one seriously believes it's because they managed to annoy and inconvenience average people really well.