I love your use of "link". You know what's going on here. Your position is that one is the cause of the other. But when describing their positions, it's just "link". You understand what is going on here.
Read. The. Sources. There are repeated causal statements.
"climate change will severely affect biodiversity".
"The ~1ºC rise in mean global temperature is causing serious and often unexpected impacts on species, affecting their abundance, genetic composition, behaviour and survival." - Causal. "Causing".
"the five direct drivers of change in nature with the largest relative global impacts so far. These culprits are: (1) changes in land and sea use; (2) direct exploitation of organisms; (3) climate change". - Among others, a "DIRECT DRIVER". Causal.
At this point, I'm quite confident you have no idea what I said at any point.
You said biodiversity would benefit from climate change. You quibbled about the idea that climate change drives extinctions and habitat loss. These are positions you took, and anyone is able to go back and read them.
You would like to weasel out of them now, so you're pretending your positions were always different.
... and land use change. Seriously, start reading your own quotes. It connects to climate AND land use changes. They aren't saying what you are.
Yes, it connects them to climate change and land use change. "Due to climate and land use change".
Sorry, on what fucking planet is that in line with what you said? You said climate change doesn't result in habitat loss. You didn't merely say it's one of several causes-- you said it's not a driver at all.
You then have an unambiguous statement saying it does drive it, alongside land-use change. And you're... pretending that the presence of other drivers alongside it somehow vindicates your claim that it's not a driver at all?