Personally, when I'm reading an article, I skim past the parts that explain climate change, unless it has some new bit of information (ex. updates to historical trends). It's not because I doubt climate change, but because I'm pretty familiar with the core points already.

I think it is helpful to talk about it in longer articles where you have room to dive into the topic, and put the current topic into a relevant wider context. However, I don't think we should require it for the sake of mentioning it. It's not effective at changing minds when its done like that.

I agree that the last article should have included the wider context. I would also be concerned if there is a growing pattern of not mentioning it when it needs to be. On this last point, while it's more difficult, I would prefer if they analyzed sentiment and phrasing rather than counting mentions.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/wildfire-climate-emissions-smoke-9.7274862