Please see my other comment. I will explain my original comment. In the first case, climate models don't usually do that. You couple them to biological models

Please see my other comment. I will explain my original comment. In the first case, climate models don't usually do that. You couple them to biological models that predict habitat expansion or contraction. (I think this is probably what the authors meant.) In the second case, well, it's not exactly an extraordinary finding, which would make it absurd to put in the article except in the spirit of Carthago delenda est. Being involved in climate discourse does not have to be a humourless exercise. P.S. non-anthropogenic biology does play a part in climate models (and the climate!), but over a much, much longer timescale. Think chalk cliffs and the Great Oxygenation Event.