The IPCC uses the following equation to calculate the radiative forcing from atmospheric CO2: RF = 5.35loge(C1/C0) W/m2 where RF stands for ‘Radiative Forcing’; C0 is the initial CO2 concentration; C1 is the final CO2 concentration, and W/m2 stands for ‘watts per square metre’. If the atmospheric CO2 concentration stands at 400ppmv (i.e. 0.04%) and it increased to 950,000ppmv (i.e. 95%) then the IPCC’s equation gives us a total of 5.35xLn(950000/400) = 41.58 W/m2 of ‘radiative forcing’. Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law to convert that into a temperature increase at the surface we get (288^4 + 41.58/σ)^0.25 – 288 = 7.4C. I would not take the IPCC’s equation as gospel though because it contradicts experiments by Hottel and Leckner of CO2’s total absorptivity/emissivity. But yeah, according to the IPCC’s equation, 7.4C higher than the current average surface temperature of 15C (or 288K) is your answer.

A better question would be, what would Earth's temperature be if the partial pressure of CO2 were 95kPa. As long as there is oxygen, and as long as there were some carbon dioxide, life that is adapted to that carbon dioxide level is what would have evolved.

Other things being equal, 95kPa CO2 would be about 11 doublings from 400ppm. Earth would be between 11C and 50C warmer than it is now.

if the earth didn't have any co2/greenhouse effect it would be a winter planet.

Beware Deniers who try to 'sound smart' with phoney science.

the same as now. Temperature increase CO2 not the other way around.

*in the long run it would be cooler because of more trees so shade and moisture.

Doesn't matter, we wouldn't be here, nor would anything else.