No, the second graph makes the point that the change is relatively small. Small is not the same as irrelevant. The relevance of that increase is determined by what the root cause is, what other knock-on effects could occur due to the increase and what other effects could come from that cause. Neither of the graphs alone tell us the whole story. How they're presented can be (mis)used to present an assumption about the story. That can be (and I'm sure has been) done with the first graph but you are explicitly doing it with the second.