That's nonsense. Temperature isn't a direct function of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even climatologists don't believe it's that simple. That's why there's so much debate about the true value of ECS, that's why they spent much of the 2010s trying to explain the pause in global warming by reference to heat absorption of the oceans, etc (they since changed the mind and now argue that they were simply failing to correctly measure temperatures for decades, which is even worse).

The false belief that climate = CO2 levels is one of the things that creates skepticism about climatology, because anyone who bothers to check the actual facts instead of relying on "high school level chemistry" will immediately see that it's false. Moreover if it were actually that simple then there'd be no need to worry because if you simply map CO2 level increases to temperature increases then you don't get anything even close to a doomsday scenario. All the "we need to reach net zero yesterday" type claims are predicated on hypothetical and quite complicated feedback loops that involve far more than just a straight mapping of temperature=CO2 levels.