No, the changes to the climate are the results of industrialization, overpopulation, and pollution.
“Global warming” merely describes a change in an abstract number, which number you get by taking temperature readings from all over the planet, averaging them, correcting for insolation and many other variables, and comparing them to similarly averaged and corrected readings from previous years. You are measuring the difference in the Earth’s ability to reflect the Sun’s energy using a derived and aproximate number - which corresponds to no single actual place on the Earth, and also does not accurately (or even aproximately) measure the total thermal energy of the planet.
And although global average temperature models are a valid way for climatologists to track change, within their field, the buzzphrase is misleading to people outside that field. I think it’s unwise to use highfalutin’ technical jargon when the issues of pollution and climate change need to be understood by everyone, not just intellectuals and climatologists. And I think we need to address the pollution issue, attack the cause, rather than harping on only one of the major symptoms.