Can't take climate activist seriously if they choose to destroy works of art, block roadways, and are as disruptive and annoying as Pro-Palestinian and PETA protestors.

@1 climate activists haven't destroyed any works of art, but anti-climate activists have (see: bombing of the Georgia Guidestones), and so has climate change. Second, throwing soup or paint on a piece of glass does not damage the underlying art. Third, the planet and a hell of a lot of art on it both natural and man-made are in danger from climate action and which tactics that inspires others to take does not change the fact that the danger exists. Fourth, the fact that even property destruction can be justified in order to avoid larger destruction is not something that you have to agree with in order to take climate action and support it. If you were in danger of being hit by a car and someone tried to warn you, would you ignore them if it happened to be someone you find rude?

@2
is That
a Rhetorical question?

Mother Nature'll
take and Take & TAKE
and then one Day she'll
just Shrug us Off. oops! we'll say.

'Sorry!' but in Space
No one can hear
you Scream.

say that Reminds me:
on Mars they found
an Olde rusted-out
Monsatan sign.

Happy
Earth Day!

@2:

Fourth, the fact that even property destruction can be justified in order to avoid larger destruction is not something that you have to agree with in order to take climate action and support it.

So you justify evil to achieve the means?

If you were in danger of being hit by a car and someone tried to warn you, would you ignore them if it happened to be someone you find rude?

False equivalence as verbal communication is not property destruction or endangering public safety.

Proverbs 17:28, Raindrop dear.

The cause isn't wrong, but the tactics are. If you want folks to "follow the science" and not be in denial, then let them follow the science sans the protesting. We already agree anyway.