The AI did not describe climate change as an "Objective Fact". In fact when you suggested it was (with spelling errors) it went on to describe "overwhelming consensus" and "established data and conclusions of major scientific bodies."
The AI was being very reasonable "Attributing the worsening fire seasons to climate trends does not dismiss other massive variables."
You then proceed to argue with the AI. It seem you have an opinion that we should not act on climate change based simply on "overwhelming consensus" but need the higher bar of "objective fact" or "proven conclusively"
I would suggest to you that almost no modern science generates objective facts, or proves things conclusively. We try and get experts to come together in some consensus, and we act.
And finally to answer your question, AIs are not designed to think critically, they are designed to vomit what they read on the internet.