So one quarter did. I think that’s reasonable, though it needs to be across every outlet, as without reading I’m sure GB news wasn’t singing about that.
But there’s no need to mention climate change alongside every, or nearly every report on extreme weather - that’s absurd. It’d be like mentioning the cause of the war in Ukraine in every article on that - it’s appropriate at first when some people haven’t heard, but decreasingly afterwards.
The cause of war in Ukraine isn’t (widely) disputed or controversial, outside of extreme circles. Unfortunately human-caused climate change being the driver for extreme weather is.
I looked up some stats. A YouGov poll puts support for Russia in the war at 4% in the UK (as against 21% “don’t know” and the rest support Ukraine) so it’s pretty fringe. This poll is a bit harder to interpret but sure, climate change is less accepted than the idea that we should favour Ukraine in the war.
I think though that the principle stands. Mentioning the link frequently, but not all the time, is appropriate for a link that most people understand and agree exists.