I think it's reasonable to be dubious given the source, and for that to be the default position until there is confirmation from other independent sources. Tha

I think it's reasonable to be dubious given the source, and for that to be the default position until there is confirmation from other independent sources. That is, it may not be worth the time necessary to figure out whether the results hold up given that there is a prior likelihood of the source intentionally cherry-picking data on one end of the statistical spectrum that supports their agenda. I mention in a comment above that the underlying source for the data is BP [1], which is also a little suspect, and their description of the methodology [2] is way too slim to be useful for a critique or confirmation of their results. [1] https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/co2-emissions.html https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/stat... [2] https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2018-carbon-emissions-methodology.pdf https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-ec...