Sure, but it's also a vastly more complex problem. Those examples consisted of specific regimes which protestors wanted to change in specific ways, and making enforcing the law more trouble than it was worth for those regimes was a simple and logical route to achieving that change.
I don't see the same logical connection between the large-scale technological and institutional change across the entire globe needed to avert climate change and some guy in London with a drone ruining people's holidays.
If you're trying to achieve complex behavioural changes as opposed to rendering a bad law unenforceable, it's probably a good idea not to pursue a strategy consisting solely of irritating the general public.
Every protest isn't the equivalent of India fighting for independence.
>Climate change is a vastly more serious problem than either of those two.
Fortunately, you don't get to decide which issues are "most important" to other people.
It's a tough line to swallow from the GP, but I wasn't expecting anyone to disagree that human effected climate change was important. Surely it's the most important issue humans have faced, ever?
Doing that just leads to emotion-charged-but-pointless arguments.