what's really great about this chart is if you look closely enough you can actually see where and how the tweet is lying to you.
like ooooohhhh you got me, the CO2 levels were higher back in the fucking miocene than they are now, who gives a shit, meanwhile since industrialization emerged carbon rates have been skyrocketing and are higher than they've been in several million years. not to mention given the scale of this chart you're not going to see how dramatic and sudden this change has really been since it's barely visible on the chart:
maybe consider that when you try to flatten the data down to a straight trend line from the fucking cambrian, some important nuance may be lost.
also obviously the claim that "all life evolved" in the prior epochs where CO2 was much higher is just nonsense- plenty of life has evolved in the last several million years, most notably, you know, humans, so we should maybe consider that humans are adapted to that climate and won't fare particularly well if we return the CO2/temperature to the levels they were back when dinosaurs walked the earth. yeah, the CO2 levels and temperate have changed wildly throughout earth's history, but these changes are usually related to massive extinction events, so it's probably a good idea to avoid that. you're worried that humanity is going to be sacrificed to protect gaia but what is actually more likely to happen is humanity will be sacrificed to protect short-term corporate profits. and you're helping them do it, great job.
at any rate, to turn the tweets (wrong) "all life evolved when CO2 was much higher" argument back around, all human agriculture was developed when CO2 levels were much lower (and also CO2 levels are rising rapidly) so the notion that there's any realistic risk of CO2 levels dropping too low for agriculture to be viable is completely ludicrous.