I'm going with not.
And of course, that's a "professionally uneducated" opinion, meaning I have no formal schooling on the subject.
However, I've done enough experiments of my own and made enough personal observations when it comes to certain gasses (primarily CO2) to give it credit for having the properties of blocking and/or trapping certain wavelengths of "light". The effects are slightly different, but it does indeed affect the propagation of both near and far infrared.
That being said, these "scientists" that claim all the global warming caused by these so-called greenhouse gasses are in the same general category as meteorologists... The study of both weather and climate alike are heavily subject to that little concept called chaos theory, which, in a nutshell for those not read up on it, essentially states that for any given known set of circumstances, there are so many minute details involved that add up over time, that only a general idea of the pattern of the outcome can be calculated with any accuracy. The further out the predicted time frame, the more chaos interferes.
All anyone has to do is track a storm as it moves through the atmosphere in order to see this. Even many uneducated people can roughly predict approximately where its going to end up, but just try nailing down the exact path. Ain't happening.
Global warming is no different. Too many variables, too many sources of the gasses "causing" it, too many different concentrations in too many different places, too this, too that.
There's money to be made on uncertainty, and as such this is one hell of a cash cow. If it weren't, "carbon credits" wouldn't exist.