Using true, but misleading data in a graph to stimulate an erroneous conclusion

Two graphs have been shared with me recently, one on COVID deaths vs vaccination rates and the other on the projected use of fossil fuels in the immediate future vs goals to mitigate climate change.  Each can be used to argue against prevailing wisdom - one that vaccination reduces COVID deaths when an increasing proportion of deaths are with vaccinated persons and the other that fossil fuel use will continue to increase at rates beyond what we would want to reduce the rate of climate change.

If one reads the full reports from which each of  the graphs are taken, you find the data is actually consistent with the stated goals of the reports - get vaccinated and burn less fossil fuel.  Does offering these graphs alone constitute any form of logical fallacy even though it is clearly designed to mislead viewers of the graphs alone?