Nope. Energy comes in riding the whole electromagnetic spectrum, including frequencies for which CO2 is completely transparent. When it strikes the Earth, much is converted to heat and then re-radiated at a much lower frequency. At the lower frequency, CO2 is not nearly so transparent.So, if CO2 prevents heat from leaving the planet, wouldn't also prevent it from entering as well?
It is a cascade of mis-interpretations like this that fuel much of the debate. It's easy to say such a thing, and "common sense" would say that it is so, but it often is not.
Like the "natural" sources of CO2. Natural measures have handled the natural causes for quite a while, and can even handle a quantity of unnatural additions. How many? I know that I don't know. But it may be a case of "the straw that broke the camels back". Once it breaks, taking the straw off won't fix things. It's not the first 20 feet of water behind the levee that floods the town, it's that last 2 inches. Then the town doesn't get just 2 inches of water!
One of the larger natural sources of free CO2 is the natural decomposition of wood. For eons, this was a balanced system, subject to relatively minor fluctuations, as the carbon released from dead trees became available to be reabsorbed by new trees incrementally taking the place of the dead and dying. More recently, large trees are cut to be replaced by small trees, not in a gradual, natural of birth and death, but in millions of acres at a time, across the face of the planet. These are often not replaced by new trees. Where forests once stood, with their huge load of carbon locked up in (mostly) living trees, now there are farm lands, and cities, and factories discharging carbon, and lumber and paper rots.
So a once stable system has had a huge impulse input. No, I'm not complaining about "trees make oxygen", because in the large picture (time and space large), they had a net effect of zero, in that overall, living trees absorbed the same amount of carbon as dead trees released. But now, the dead side of this equation has been very unnaturally increased.
Should we still call this a "natural" source?
Lots of other over-simplifications are easy to rant about, but I find that many of them are base on "facts" that simply are not so.