about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,254 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for Democratic Senators in North Carolina and the second variable is Fossil fuel use in Sudan.  The chart goes from 1980 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As more Democrats were elected in North Carolina, they enacted policies that inadvertently led to a boom in the demand for Sudanese camels, which are now being used as an alternative, albeit slow, method of fossil fuel extraction. Looks like Sudan's fuel industry is really going through a hump day!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image of a futuristic city skyline with sleek, towering buildings featuring holographic projections of Democratic senators celebrating a landslide victory in North Carolina. Below, in a desert landscape, camels are seen hauling advanced drilling equipment, illuminating the scene with advanced lighting tech. This portrayal emphasizes the distant yet interconnected consequences of political choices and their impact on traditional industries. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.
This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Votes for Democratic Senators in North Carolina and Fossil fuel use in Sudan. Given these, which of the following image style descriptions seems most appropriate? Pick the one that seems to be related to one of the variables at hand. Please respond with only one of the following potential descriptions: Cyberpunk Minimalism Cute 2D animation Futuristic Minimalism
ChatGPT: Futuristic

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Votes for Democratic Senators in North Carolina and Fossil fuel use in Sudan, in the following situation: As more Democrats were elected in North Carolina, they enacted policies that inadvertently led to a boom in the demand for Sudanese camels, which are now being used as an alternative, albeit slow, method of fossil fuel extraction. Looks like Sudan's fuel industry is really going through a hump day!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In North Carolina, a ballot box overflows with votes for Democratic senators. Meanwhile, in Sudan, a convoy of camels is being led through the desert, carrying heavy equipment for oil extraction. The camels are now in high demand due to the policies enacted in North Carolina, as they are used as a slow but steady alternative method for fossil fuel extraction.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You write and improve image generation prompts for DALLE-3. You maintain the same subjects, but enhance the visuals.
User prompt: Please respond with an image generation prompt that would be likely to create an interesting visual using DALLE-3, using the following style: [ Futuristic ] and depicting this scene: In North Carolina, a ballot box overflows with votes for Democratic senators. Meanwhile, in Sudan, a convoy of camels is being led through the desert, carrying heavy equipment for oil extraction. The camels are now in high demand due to the policies enacted in North Carolina, as they are used as a slow but steady alternative method for fossil fuel extraction. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image of a futuristic city skyline with sleek, towering buildings featuring holographic projections of Democratic senators celebrating a landslide victory in North Carolina. Below, in a desert landscape, camels are seen hauling advanced drilling equipment, illuminating the scene with advanced lighting tech. This portrayal emphasizes the distant yet interconnected consequences of political choices and their impact on traditional industries.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina caused Fossil fuel use in Sudan to increase. Add a funny one-liner at the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Senators and Combustors: Democrat Votes in North Carolina and Fossil Fuel Use in Sudan

The International Journal of Political Science and Geospatial Studies

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and Fossil fuel use in Sudan. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Rhyme words in the title.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Energy Information Administration to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9395780 and p < 0.01 for 1980 to 2020.

Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
Senators and Combustors: Democrat Votes in North Carolina and Fossil Fuel Use in Sudan

[[ABSTRACT]]
The aim of this study is to shed light on the intriguing relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan. Our research team harnessed data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Energy Information Administration to tackle this conundrum. Utilizing sophisticated statistical analyses, the study revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9395780 and p < 0.01 for the time span of 1980 to 2020.

The results of this study prompt us to ponder whether there is a hidden connection between political preferences in one region and energy consumption patterns in another. Could it be that the political leanings of North Carolinians have a tangential effect on the per capita fossil fuel use in Sudan? It's a head-scratcher, indeed. As our research delved deeper, we couldn't help but reflect on the old saying: "Where there's a vote, there's a way... to influence fossil fuel use in a far-off land" - a delightful twist on a familiar concept.

Our findings open the door to further investigation into the intricate interplay of global politics and environmental impact. The implication is that political dynamics may weave an unforeseen web, reaching across borders and shaping carbon footprints in unexpected ways. With the quizzical nature of our research, we can't help but leave you with one more quirky insight: "When it comes to Senate votes and petroleum, the correlation is simply electri-frying!"


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and Fossil fuel use in Sudan. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Senators and Combustors: Democrat Votes in North Carolina and Fossil Fuel Use in Sudan

[[ABSTRACT]]
The aim of this study is to shed light on the intriguing relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan. Our research team harnessed data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Energy Information Administration to tackle this conundrum. Utilizing sophisticated statistical analyses, the study revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9395780 and p < 0.01 for the time span of 1980 to 2020.

The results of this study prompt us to ponder whether there is a hidden connection between political preferences in one region and energy consumption patterns in another. Could it be that the political leanings of North Carolinians have a tangential effect on the per capita fossil fuel use in Sudan? It's a head-scratcher, indeed. As our research delved deeper, we couldn't help but reflect on the old saying: "Where there's a vote, there's a way... to influence fossil fuel use in a far-off land" - a delightful twist on a familiar concept.

Our findings open the door to further investigation into the intricate interplay of global politics and environmental impact. The implication is that political dynamics may weave an unforeseen web, reaching across borders and shaping carbon footprints in unexpected ways. With the quizzical nature of our research, we can't help but leave you with one more quirky insight: "When it comes to Senate votes and petroleum, the correlation is simply electri-frying!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

As researchers, we often find ourselves venturing into uncharted territories, unraveling the mysteries of seemingly disparate variables. The investigation at hand delves into the curious relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan. It's a connection that raises eyebrows and prompts us to ponder the whimsical ways in which political inclinations and energy consumption intersect. It's like trying to figure out why the mathematician was so good at solving fossil fuel mysteries - she had a knack for cracking the oil-gorithm!

The interplay between political behaviors and environmental impacts has long been an area of intrigue. In this study, we've set out to shine a spotlight on the unseen threads that weave together voting patterns in one corner of the world and the carbon footprint in a far-flung land. It's a bit like unraveling a complex puzzle, or as we like to call it, a "political energy conundrum" - where every piece offers a jolt of surprise.

Our sleuthing journey led us to harness a trove of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. Through sophisticated statistical analyses and a penchant for pattern detection, our findings unearthed an astonishing correlation coefficient that got us exclaiming, "Talk about getting fired up over politics and energy usage!"

The unexpected connection that emerged from our research leaves us with a profound question: Could the votes cast in the serene corners of North Carolina be casting a shadow over the combustion of fossil fuels in the sands of Sudan? It's akin to finding a fossil of a T-Rex in a Mayan temple – a delightful mystery that sparks the imagination and ignites our thirst for knowledge.

This study not only peels back the layers of this enigmatic association but also lays the groundwork for future exploration into the quirks of global political dynamics and their ripple effects. As we embark on this journey of scientific discovery, we're reminded of the adage, "Where there's political will, there's an impactful way... across continents and energy consumption." It's as if the universe itself is whispering: "Vote wisely, for it may fuel a planet far beyond your shores."

With each surprising revelation in our research, it's impossible not to rejoice in the wonders of scientific inquiry and the tangled web of cause and effect. It's like uncovering the hidden power of political preferences and their role in shaping energy landscapes worldwide. After all, who would have thought that the tilt of a senatorial scale could tip the balance of fossil fuel usage in a distant desert? With every piece of our scientific puzzle, we can't help but revel in the electrifying realization that "when it comes to political sway and petroleum, the correlation is simply electri-frying!"

[TBC - Would you like me to continue writing?]


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and Fossil fuel use in Sudan. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Speak in the present tense for this section (the authors find...), as is common in academic research paper literature reviews. Name the sources in a format similar to this: In "Book," the authors find lorem and ipsum.

Make up the lorem and ipsum part, but make it sound related to the topic at hand.

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name a couple popular internet memes that are related to one of the topics.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Senators and Combustors: Democrat Votes in North Carolina and Fossil Fuel Use in Sudan

[[ABSTRACT]]
The aim of this study is to shed light on the intriguing relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan. Our research team harnessed data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Energy Information Administration to tackle this conundrum. Utilizing sophisticated statistical analyses, the study revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9395780 and p < 0.01 for the time span of 1980 to 2020.

The results of this study prompt us to ponder whether there is a hidden connection between political preferences in one region and energy consumption patterns in another. Could it be that the political leanings of North Carolinians have a tangential effect on the per capita fossil fuel use in Sudan? It's a head-scratcher, indeed. As our research delved deeper, we couldn't help but reflect on the old saying: "Where there's a vote, there's a way... to influence fossil fuel use in a far-off land" - a delightful twist on a familiar concept.

Our findings open the door to further investigation into the intricate interplay of global politics and environmental impact. The implication is that political dynamics may weave an unforeseen web, reaching across borders and shaping carbon footprints in unexpected ways. With the quizzical nature of our research, we can't help but leave you with one more quirky insight: "When it comes to Senate votes and petroleum, the correlation is simply electri-frying!"

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
As researchers, we often find ourselves venturing into uncharted territories, unraveling the mysteries of seemingly disparate variables. The investigation at hand delves into the curious relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan. It's a connection that raises eyebrows and prompts us to ponder the whimsical ways in which political inclinations and energy consumption intersect. It's like trying to figure out why the mathematician was so good at solving fossil fuel mysteries - she had a knack for cracking the oil-gorithm!
The interplay between political behaviors and environmental impacts has long been an area of intrigue. In this study, we've set out to shine a spotlight on the unseen threads that weave together voting patterns in one corner of the world and the carbon footprint in a far-flung land. It's a bit like unraveling a complex puzzle, or as we like to call it, a "political energy conundrum" - where every piece offers a jolt of surprise.
Our sleuthing journey led us to harness a trove of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. Through sophisticated statistical analyses and a penchant for pattern detection, our findings unearthed an astonishing correlation coefficient that got us exclaiming, "Talk about getting fired up over politics and energy usage!"
The unexpected connection that emerged from our research leaves us with a profound question: Could the votes cast in the serene corners of North Carolina be casting a shadow over the combustion of fossil fuels in the sands of Sudan? It's akin to finding a fossil of a T-Rex in a Mayan temple – a delightful mystery that sparks the imagination and ignites our thirst for knowledge.
This study not only peels back the layers of this enigmatic association but also lays the groundwork for future exploration into the quirks of global political dynamics and their ripple effects. As we embark on this journey of scientific discovery, we're reminded of the adage, "Where there's political will, there's an impactful way... across continents and energy consumption." It's as if the universe itself is whispering: "Vote wisely, for it may fuel a planet far beyond your shores."
With each surprising revelation in our research, it's impossible not to rejoice in the wonders of scientific inquiry and the tangled web of cause and effect. It's like uncovering the hidden power of political preferences and their role in shaping energy landscapes worldwide. After all, who would have thought that the tilt of a senatorial scale could tip the balance of fossil fuel usage in a distant desert? With every piece of our scientific puzzle, we can't help but revel in the electrifying realization that "when it comes to political sway and petroleum, the correlation is simply electri-frying!"
[TBC - Would you like me to continue writing?]

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

To embark on our exploration of the enthralling connection between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan, we lean on the scholarly work of Smith et al., Doe et al., and Jones et al., who have ventured into the realms of political sociology and global energy dynamics. Smith et al. scrutinize the intricate fabric of political ideologies, while Doe et al. delve into the complexities of energy consumption patterns. Jones et al., on the other hand, bring to light the interwoven nature of international relations and environmental impact. It's as if they're all part of a symphony, playing different tunes but coming together in a harmonious crescendo—like a political-energy opera!

In "Energy Politics and Global Governance," Smith et al. present a thought-provoking analysis of the ways in which political dynamics intersect with energy policies on a global scale. Meanwhile, Doe et al.'s work in "The Economics of Fossil Fuels" sheds light on the intricate dance between energy demand and consumption patterns. Jones et al.'s "Environmental Diplomacy and Cross-Border Influence" offers insights into the far-reaching ramifications of political decisions on environmental matters. It's like they're all gathering in the scientific salon, ready to tango with the tantalizing tango of political proclivities and energy quagmires!

Transitioning from scholarly works, we cannot ignore the resonance of fictitious narratives that seem to echo the peculiar dynamics we seek to unravel. In "The Senatorial Chronicles," a fictional tale set in the backdrop of North Carolina's political landscape, the plot thickens as the protagonist's political stance inadvertently shapes the fate of a distant land's energy trajectory. Similarly, in "Fossil Fuel Fables from Faraway Lands," the author paints a surreal yet captivating picture of how political currents in one hemisphere ripple through the arid sands of a Sudanese desert. It's like a literary symphony, harmoniously blending fiction and reality in a cacophony of political and energy intrigue!

Turning to the online sphere, we encounter memes that, in their humorous fashion, capture the essence of this surprising connection. The popular "Surprised Pikachu" meme offers a lighthearted take on the astonishing revelations of our study, as if the electric Pokémon itself is flabbergasted by the unexpected correlation between Senate votes and fossil fuel utilization. The "Distracted Boyfriend" meme, in a comical twist, encapsulates the bewildering revelation of political nudges shaping energy landscapes, as if the distracted boyfriend's gaze has shifted from one realm to another, mirroring the surprising way political leanings veer into the energy equation. It's like the internet itself is joining in the jest, turning our scholarly pursuit into a whimsical play of pixels and punchlines.

[...]

Would you like me to keep going?


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and Fossil fuel use in Sudan. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Energy Information Administration . You used data from 1980 to 2020

Make up the research methods you don't know. Make them a bit goofy and convoluted.

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Senators and Combustors: Democrat Votes in North Carolina and Fossil Fuel Use in Sudan

[[ABSTRACT]]
The aim of this study is to shed light on the intriguing relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan. Our research team harnessed data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Energy Information Administration to tackle this conundrum. Utilizing sophisticated statistical analyses, the study revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9395780 and p < 0.01 for the time span of 1980 to 2020.

The results of this study prompt us to ponder whether there is a hidden connection between political preferences in one region and energy consumption patterns in another. Could it be that the political leanings of North Carolinians have a tangential effect on the per capita fossil fuel use in Sudan? It's a head-scratcher, indeed. As our research delved deeper, we couldn't help but reflect on the old saying: "Where there's a vote, there's a way... to influence fossil fuel use in a far-off land" - a delightful twist on a familiar concept.

Our findings open the door to further investigation into the intricate interplay of global politics and environmental impact. The implication is that political dynamics may weave an unforeseen web, reaching across borders and shaping carbon footprints in unexpected ways. With the quizzical nature of our research, we can't help but leave you with one more quirky insight: "When it comes to Senate votes and petroleum, the correlation is simply electri-frying!"

[[INTRODUCTION]]
As researchers, we often find ourselves venturing into uncharted territories, unraveling the mysteries of seemingly disparate variables. The investigation at hand delves into the curious relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan. It's a connection that raises eyebrows and prompts us to ponder the whimsical ways in which political inclinations and energy consumption intersect. It's like trying to figure out why the mathematician was so good at solving fossil fuel mysteries - she had a knack for cracking the oil-gorithm!
The interplay between political behaviors and environmental impacts has long been an area of intrigue. In this study, we've set out to shine a spotlight on the unseen threads that weave together voting patterns in one corner of the world and the carbon footprint in a far-flung land. It's a bit like unraveling a complex puzzle, or as we like to call it, a "political energy conundrum" - where every piece offers a jolt of surprise.
Our sleuthing journey led us to harness a trove of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. Through sophisticated statistical analyses and a penchant for pattern detection, our findings unearthed an astonishing correlation coefficient that got us exclaiming, "Talk about getting fired up over politics and energy usage!"
The unexpected connection that emerged from our research leaves us with a profound question: Could the votes cast in the serene corners of North Carolina be casting a shadow over the combustion of fossil fuels in the sands of Sudan? It's akin to finding a fossil of a T-Rex in a Mayan temple – a delightful mystery that sparks the imagination and ignites our thirst for knowledge.
This study not only peels back the layers of this enigmatic association but also lays the groundwork for future exploration into the quirks of global political dynamics and their ripple effects. As we embark on this journey of scientific discovery, we're reminded of the adage, "Where there's political will, there's an impactful way... across continents and energy consumption." It's as if the universe itself is whispering: "Vote wisely, for it may fuel a planet far beyond your shores."
With each surprising revelation in our research, it's impossible not to rejoice in the wonders of scientific inquiry and the tangled web of cause and effect. It's like uncovering the hidden power of political preferences and their role in shaping energy landscapes worldwide. After all, who would have thought that the tilt of a senatorial scale could tip the balance of fossil fuel usage in a distant desert? With every piece of our scientific puzzle, we can't help but revel in the electrifying realization that "when it comes to political sway and petroleum, the correlation is simply electri-frying!"
[TBC - Would you like me to continue writing?]

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

Certainly! Here's the draft of the methodology section with a touch of humor and puns:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To untangle the enigmatic relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan, our research team embarked on an odyssey filled with more plot twists than a political thriller movie. Our approach aimed to be as methodical as possible, even though theories and statistical analyses sometimes felt like they were shrouded in political fog—much like trying to measure the immeasurable. It was like attempting to balance a seesaw with a donkey and an elephant—quite a balancing act indeed!

As part of our crackerjack investigation, we deployed a mixed-method research design that combined quantitative data analysis with qualitative insights from energy and political experts. Our primary data sources included the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, resulting in a collection process that was as vast and varied as a political rally in the energy sector.

In an attempt to wrangle the ever-elusive data, we navigated through the digital labyrinth of information, scrutinizing individual senatorial votes and dissecting fossil fuel consumption patterns in Sudan. It was like being on a treasure hunt in a library, deciphering hidden codes amidst stacks of scientific papers and voter rolls—quite the treasure trove!

Leveraging the powers of statistical analysis, we implemented robust techniques such as regression modeling, time-series analysis, and principle component analysis to reveal the hidden bond between seemingly disconnected variables. It was akin to trying to determine which came first, the senator or the combustion—our minds were indeed abuzz.

The temporal scope from 1980 to 2020 allowed for a thorough examination of shifts in political trends and energy dynamics, painting a portrait of interconnectedness that was as intricate as weaving a Persian rug. Each data point became a pixel in the mosaic, painting a vivid image of the interwoven tapestry of political preference and fuel consumption. It was as if we were piecing together a cosmic jigsaw puzzle, each revelation drawing us closer to the edge of our seats.

Our foray into the realm of scientific inquiry involved rigorous quality checks and validations to ensure the robustness of our findings. We delved deep into the statistical cauldron, stirring the pot to ensure that our results emerged with the clarity and consistency of a well-crafted election manifesto. It was like conducting a symphony of data analysis, harmonizing variables into a symphonic crescendo.

To compensate for potential confounding factors and address the nuances of cross-national analysis, we employed techniques to control for variables and mitigate the influence of extraneous factors. It was like threading a political needle, ensuring that the fabric of our analysis was devoid of any loose stitches.

Ultimately, our methodological approach strived to encompass the multifaceted nature of the Democrat votes in North Carolina and the fossil fuel use in Sudan, capturing the spirit of their interplay like conducting a political sonnet. With each methodological maneuver, we sought to shed light on this capricious connection with the precision and verve of a political sleuth on the trail of an elusive suspect. After all, what's a methodology without a dash of electoral humor?

Would you like me to continue writing?


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and Fossil fuel use in Sudan. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Energy Information Administration .

For the time period 1980 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9395780, r-squared of 0.8828068, and p < 0.01.

One figure will be included. The figure (Fig. 1) is a scatterplot showing the strong correlation between the two variables. You don't need to specify where; I will add the figure.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
Senators and Combustors: Democrat Votes in North Carolina and Fossil Fuel Use in Sudan

[[ABSTRACT]]
The aim of this study is to shed light on the intriguing relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan. Our research team harnessed data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Energy Information Administration to tackle this conundrum. Utilizing sophisticated statistical analyses, the study revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9395780 and p < 0.01 for the time span of 1980 to 2020.

The results of this study prompt us to ponder whether there is a hidden connection between political preferences in one region and energy consumption patterns in another. Could it be that the political leanings of North Carolinians have a tangential effect on the per capita fossil fuel use in Sudan? It's a head-scratcher, indeed. As our research delved deeper, we couldn't help but reflect on the old saying: "Where there's a vote, there's a way... to influence fossil fuel use in a far-off land" - a delightful twist on a familiar concept.

Our findings open the door to further investigation into the intricate interplay of global politics and environmental impact. The implication is that political dynamics may weave an unforeseen web, reaching across borders and shaping carbon footprints in unexpected ways. With the quizzical nature of our research, we can't help but leave you with one more quirky insight: "When it comes to Senate votes and petroleum, the correlation is simply electri-frying!"

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
As researchers, we often find ourselves venturing into uncharted territories, unraveling the mysteries of seemingly disparate variables. The investigation at hand delves into the curious relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan. It's a connection that raises eyebrows and prompts us to ponder the whimsical ways in which political inclinations and energy consumption intersect. It's like trying to figure out why the mathematician was so good at solving fossil fuel mysteries - she had a knack for cracking the oil-gorithm!
The interplay between political behaviors and environmental impacts has long been an area of intrigue. In this study, we've set out to shine a spotlight on the unseen threads that weave together voting patterns in one corner of the world and the carbon footprint in a far-flung land. It's a bit like unraveling a complex puzzle, or as we like to call it, a "political energy conundrum" - where every piece offers a jolt of surprise.
Our sleuthing journey led us to harness a trove of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. Through sophisticated statistical analyses and a penchant for pattern detection, our findings unearthed an astonishing correlation coefficient that got us exclaiming, "Talk about getting fired up over politics and energy usage!"
The unexpected connection that emerged from our research leaves us with a profound question: Could the votes cast in the serene corners of North Carolina be casting a shadow over the combustion of fossil fuels in the sands of Sudan? It's akin to finding a fossil of a T-Rex in a Mayan temple – a delightful mystery that sparks the imagination and ignites our thirst for knowledge.
This study not only peels back the layers of this enigmatic association but also lays the groundwork for future exploration into the quirks of global political dynamics and their ripple effects. As we embark on this journey of scientific discovery, we're reminded of the adage, "Where there's political will, there's an impactful way... across continents and energy consumption." It's as if the universe itself is whispering: "Vote wisely, for it may fuel a planet far beyond your shores."
With each surprising revelation in our research, it's impossible not to rejoice in the wonders of scientific inquiry and the tangled web of cause and effect. It's like uncovering the hidden power of political preferences and their role in shaping energy landscapes worldwide. After all, who would have thought that the tilt of a senatorial scale could tip the balance of fossil fuel usage in a distant desert? With every piece of our scientific puzzle, we can't help but revel in the electrifying realization that "when it comes to political sway and petroleum, the correlation is simply electri-frying!"
[TBC - Would you like me to continue writing?]

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our rigorous analysis of the data revealed a remarkably strong correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9395780. This correlation suggests a compelling association between the seemingly incongruous variables, prompting us to contemplate the intricacies of their interaction. It's as if the political compass of North Carolinians has an unforeseen magnetic pull on the energy consumption habits of individuals in distant lands – a notion as puzzling as finding a solar panel in a coal mine!

Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.8828068 underscores the robustness of this correlation, signaling that a staggering 88.28% of the variation in fossil fuel use in Sudan can be explained by Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina. One could say that the political tides in North Carolina seem to have a tidal wave effect on the fuel consumption patterns halfway around the world! This unexpected connection leaves us musing about the far-reaching influence of political preferences - a bit like a seismograph detecting tremors from an unexpected source.

The statistical significance of our findings, with p < 0.01, provides compelling evidence for the strength of this relationship. It's as if every ballot cast in North Carolina has a subtle, yet discernible impact on the levels of fossil fuel burning in the vast expanse of Sudan. We couldn't help but be reminded of the classic joke: "Did you hear about the political candidate who visited a fossil fuel plant? He was keen to ignite some 'coal-ition' support!"

Our excitement about this correlation is splendidly captured in Fig. 1, which showcases a scatterplot vividly illustrating the tight bond between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan. This visual representation serves as a compelling testament to the surprising connection we've uncovered. It's akin to stumbling upon the missing puzzle piece in a jigsaw – a revelation that leaves us both perplexed and invigorated about the hidden dynamics linking political allegiance and carbon emissions.

In conclusion, our study not only sheds light on the unexpected interplay between these two variables but also paves the way for further investigations into the nuanced influence of political landscapes on environmental patterns worldwide. As we delve deeper into this captivating conundrum, we're reminded of the resounding truth that "in the realm of research, every hypothesis is like a seed - you never know what curious correlations will bloom!"


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and Fossil fuel use in Sudan. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

Here are the title, abstract, literature review, and results sections. Please harken back to 1-2 of the goofy items in the literature review, but pretend to take them completely seriously. Discuss how your results supported the prior research.

Do not write a conclusion. I will add a conclusion after this.

[[TITLE]]
Senators and Combustors: Democrat Votes in North Carolina and Fossil Fuel Use in Sudan

[[ABSTRACT]]
The aim of this study is to shed light on the intriguing relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan. Our research team harnessed data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Energy Information Administration to tackle this conundrum. Utilizing sophisticated statistical analyses, the study revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9395780 and p < 0.01 for the time span of 1980 to 2020.

The results of this study prompt us to ponder whether there is a hidden connection between political preferences in one region and energy consumption patterns in another. Could it be that the political leanings of North Carolinians have a tangential effect on the per capita fossil fuel use in Sudan? It's a head-scratcher, indeed. As our research delved deeper, we couldn't help but reflect on the old saying: "Where there's a vote, there's a way... to influence fossil fuel use in a far-off land" - a delightful twist on a familiar concept.

Our findings open the door to further investigation into the intricate interplay of global politics and environmental impact. The implication is that political dynamics may weave an unforeseen web, reaching across borders and shaping carbon footprints in unexpected ways. With the quizzical nature of our research, we can't help but leave you with one more quirky insight: "When it comes to Senate votes and petroleum, the correlation is simply electri-frying!"

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
To embark on our exploration of the enthralling connection between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan, we lean on the scholarly work of Smith et al., Doe et al., and Jones et al., who have ventured into the realms of political sociology and global energy dynamics. Smith et al. scrutinize the intricate fabric of political ideologies, while Doe et al. delve into the complexities of energy consumption patterns. Jones et al., on the other hand, bring to light the interwoven nature of international relations and environmental impact. It's as if they're all part of a symphony, playing different tunes but coming together in a harmonious crescendo—like a political-energy opera!
In "Energy Politics and Global Governance," Smith et al. present a thought-provoking analysis of the ways in which political dynamics intersect with energy policies on a global scale. Meanwhile, Doe et al.'s work in "The Economics of Fossil Fuels" sheds light on the intricate dance between energy demand and consumption patterns. Jones et al.'s "Environmental Diplomacy and Cross-Border Influence" offers insights into the far-reaching ramifications of political decisions on environmental matters. It's like they're all gathering in the scientific salon, ready to tango with the tantalizing tango of political proclivities and energy quagmires!
Transitioning from scholarly works, we cannot ignore the resonance of fictitious narratives that seem to echo the peculiar dynamics we seek to unravel. In "The Senatorial Chronicles," a fictional tale set in the backdrop of North Carolina's political landscape, the plot thickens as the protagonist's political stance inadvertently shapes the fate of a distant land's energy trajectory. Similarly, in "Fossil Fuel Fables from Faraway Lands," the author paints a surreal yet captivating picture of how political currents in one hemisphere ripple through the arid sands of a Sudanese desert. It's like a literary symphony, harmoniously blending fiction and reality in a cacophony of political and energy intrigue!
Turning to the online sphere, we encounter memes that, in their humorous fashion, capture the essence of this surprising connection. The popular "Surprised Pikachu" meme offers a lighthearted take on the astonishing revelations of our study, as if the electric Pokémon itself is flabbergasted by the unexpected correlation between Senate votes and fossil fuel utilization. The "Distracted Boyfriend" meme, in a comical twist, encapsulates the bewildering revelation of political nudges shaping energy landscapes, as if the distracted boyfriend's gaze has shifted from one realm to another, mirroring the surprising way political leanings veer into the energy equation. It's like the internet itself is joining in the jest, turning our scholarly pursuit into a whimsical play of pixels and punchlines.
[...]
Would you like me to keep going?

[[RESULTS]]
Our rigorous analysis of the data revealed a remarkably strong correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9395780. This correlation suggests a compelling association between the seemingly incongruous variables, prompting us to contemplate the intricacies of their interaction. It's as if the political compass of North Carolinians has an unforeseen magnetic pull on the energy consumption habits of individuals in distant lands – a notion as puzzling as finding a solar panel in a coal mine!
Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.8828068 underscores the robustness of this correlation, signaling that a staggering 88.28% of the variation in fossil fuel use in Sudan can be explained by Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina. One could say that the political tides in North Carolina seem to have a tidal wave effect on the fuel consumption patterns halfway around the world! This unexpected connection leaves us musing about the far-reaching influence of political preferences - a bit like a seismograph detecting tremors from an unexpected source.
The statistical significance of our findings, with p < 0.01, provides compelling evidence for the strength of this relationship. It's as if every ballot cast in North Carolina has a subtle, yet discernible impact on the levels of fossil fuel burning in the vast expanse of Sudan. We couldn't help but be reminded of the classic joke: "Did you hear about the political candidate who visited a fossil fuel plant? He was keen to ignite some 'coal-ition' support!"
Our excitement about this correlation is splendidly captured in Fig. 1, which showcases a scatterplot vividly illustrating the tight bond between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan. This visual representation serves as a compelling testament to the surprising connection we've uncovered. It's akin to stumbling upon the missing puzzle piece in a jigsaw – a revelation that leaves us both perplexed and invigorated about the hidden dynamics linking political allegiance and carbon emissions.
In conclusion, our study not only sheds light on the unexpected interplay between these two variables but also paves the way for further investigations into the nuanced influence of political landscapes on environmental patterns worldwide. As we delve deeper into this captivating conundrum, we're reminded of the resounding truth that "in the realm of research, every hypothesis is like a seed - you never know what curious correlations will bloom!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The findings of our study emphasize the striking association between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan, aligning with prior research that has hinted at the intriguing interplay of political leanings and global energy dynamics. The robust correlation coefficient and statistical significance of our results bolster the argument put forth by Smith et al., Doe et al., and Jones et al., who have laid the foundation for unraveling the enigmatic relationship between political inclinations and carbon footprint half a world away. It's as if our study has become a vital part of this academic symphony, harmonizing with the resonant notes of previous research.

Our results provide empirical support for the whimsical anecdotes and peculiar assertions sprinkled throughout the literature review. The unremitting relationship between Senate votes and fossil fuel usage almost seems like a political sleight of hand, as if Senators have managed to sprinkle a little bit of "coal-ition" magic across the globe. The correlation between these seemingly unrelated variables is as surprising as encountering a parliamentarian pondering petro-politics in the heart of Khartoum—a true marvel, indeed!

As we reflect on the unexpected connection our study has uncovered, it's akin to stumbling upon an illuminating plot twist in a gripping novel. This unexpected correlation adds a delightful flavor of unpredictability to the scientific endeavor, reminding us that even the most peculiar of research hypotheses can yield fruitful insights. It's like embarking on a thrilling adventure in the scholarly landscape, never quite knowing where the data will lead us next!

Moreover, our results beckon further exploration into the unpredictable ways in which political currents may ripple through the ecosystem of global energy consumption. The robust correlation coefficient and r-squared value underscore the potency of this puzzling relationship, captivating us much like a magician's enigmatic aura pulls in an unsuspecting audience. Our study adds a whimsical touch to the scholarly pursuit, infusing it with an element of surprise and unexpected discovery—like finding an oasis of statistical marvel in the enigmatic desert of correlation quests.

Ultimately, our findings open the door to an array of amusing conjectures and unanticipated hypotheses, weaving a delightful tale of scientific exploration. They serve as a reminder that even the most improbable pairings can yield profound insights, leaving us with the resounding truth that in the realm of research, every unexpected correlation has the potential to ignite a captivating unraveling of the scholarly tapestry!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and Fossil fuel use in Sudan. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Limit your response to 300 tokens. At the very end, assert that no more research is needed in this area.

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
Senators and Combustors: Democrat Votes in North Carolina and Fossil Fuel Use in Sudan

[[ABSTRACT]]
The aim of this study is to shed light on the intriguing relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan. Our research team harnessed data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Energy Information Administration to tackle this conundrum. Utilizing sophisticated statistical analyses, the study revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9395780 and p < 0.01 for the time span of 1980 to 2020.

The results of this study prompt us to ponder whether there is a hidden connection between political preferences in one region and energy consumption patterns in another. Could it be that the political leanings of North Carolinians have a tangential effect on the per capita fossil fuel use in Sudan? It's a head-scratcher, indeed. As our research delved deeper, we couldn't help but reflect on the old saying: "Where there's a vote, there's a way... to influence fossil fuel use in a far-off land" - a delightful twist on a familiar concept.

Our findings open the door to further investigation into the intricate interplay of global politics and environmental impact. The implication is that political dynamics may weave an unforeseen web, reaching across borders and shaping carbon footprints in unexpected ways. With the quizzical nature of our research, we can't help but leave you with one more quirky insight: "When it comes to Senate votes and petroleum, the correlation is simply electri-frying!"

[[INTRDUCTION]]
As researchers, we often find ourselves venturing into uncharted territories, unraveling the mysteries of seemingly disparate variables. The investigation at hand delves into the curious relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan. It's a connection that raises eyebrows and prompts us to ponder the whimsical ways in which political inclinations and energy consumption intersect. It's like trying to figure out why the mathematician was so good at solving fossil fuel mysteries - she had a knack for cracking the oil-gorithm!
The interplay between political behaviors and environmental impacts has long been an area of intrigue. In this study, we've set out to shine a spotlight on the unseen threads that weave together voting patterns in one corner of the world and the carbon footprint in a far-flung land. It's a bit like unraveling a complex puzzle, or as we like to call it, a "political energy conundrum" - where every piece offers a jolt of surprise.
Our sleuthing journey led us to harness a trove of data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. Through sophisticated statistical analyses and a penchant for pattern detection, our findings unearthed an astonishing correlation coefficient that got us exclaiming, "Talk about getting fired up over politics and energy usage!"
The unexpected connection that emerged from our research leaves us with a profound question: Could the votes cast in the serene corners of North Carolina be casting a shadow over the combustion of fossil fuels in the sands of Sudan? It's akin to finding a fossil of a T-Rex in a Mayan temple – a delightful mystery that sparks the imagination and ignites our thirst for knowledge.
This study not only peels back the layers of this enigmatic association but also lays the groundwork for future exploration into the quirks of global political dynamics and their ripple effects. As we embark on this journey of scientific discovery, we're reminded of the adage, "Where there's political will, there's an impactful way... across continents and energy consumption." It's as if the universe itself is whispering: "Vote wisely, for it may fuel a planet far beyond your shores."
With each surprising revelation in our research, it's impossible not to rejoice in the wonders of scientific inquiry and the tangled web of cause and effect. It's like uncovering the hidden power of political preferences and their role in shaping energy landscapes worldwide. After all, who would have thought that the tilt of a senatorial scale could tip the balance of fossil fuel usage in a distant desert? With every piece of our scientific puzzle, we can't help but revel in the electrifying realization that "when it comes to political sway and petroleum, the correlation is simply electri-frying!"
[TBC - Would you like me to continue writing?]

[[RESULTS]]
Our rigorous analysis of the data revealed a remarkably strong correlation between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan, with a correlation coefficient of 0.9395780. This correlation suggests a compelling association between the seemingly incongruous variables, prompting us to contemplate the intricacies of their interaction. It's as if the political compass of North Carolinians has an unforeseen magnetic pull on the energy consumption habits of individuals in distant lands – a notion as puzzling as finding a solar panel in a coal mine!
Furthermore, the r-squared value of 0.8828068 underscores the robustness of this correlation, signaling that a staggering 88.28% of the variation in fossil fuel use in Sudan can be explained by Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina. One could say that the political tides in North Carolina seem to have a tidal wave effect on the fuel consumption patterns halfway around the world! This unexpected connection leaves us musing about the far-reaching influence of political preferences - a bit like a seismograph detecting tremors from an unexpected source.
The statistical significance of our findings, with p < 0.01, provides compelling evidence for the strength of this relationship. It's as if every ballot cast in North Carolina has a subtle, yet discernible impact on the levels of fossil fuel burning in the vast expanse of Sudan. We couldn't help but be reminded of the classic joke: "Did you hear about the political candidate who visited a fossil fuel plant? He was keen to ignite some 'coal-ition' support!"
Our excitement about this correlation is splendidly captured in Fig. 1, which showcases a scatterplot vividly illustrating the tight bond between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan. This visual representation serves as a compelling testament to the surprising connection we've uncovered. It's akin to stumbling upon the missing puzzle piece in a jigsaw – a revelation that leaves us both perplexed and invigorated about the hidden dynamics linking political allegiance and carbon emissions.
In conclusion, our study not only sheds light on the unexpected interplay between these two variables but also paves the way for further investigations into the nuanced influence of political landscapes on environmental patterns worldwide. As we delve deeper into this captivating conundrum, we're reminded of the resounding truth that "in the realm of research, every hypothesis is like a seed - you never know what curious correlations will bloom!"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In traversing the turbulent terrain of political leanings and fossil fuel usage, our findings unearth a persuasive association between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and the coaly habits of individuals in Sudan. It's like finding a solar panel in a coal mine – a revelation that illuminates the unsuspected bonds between seemingly disparate realms. Our results show a correlation coefficient so strong, it could power an entire fleet of energy-efficient vehicles!

The robustness of this correlation, with a staggering 88.28% of the variation in Sudan's fossil fuel use explained by North Carolina votes, suggests that the political landscape has a seismic impact on energy consumption worldwide. It's as if the political tides in North Carolina generate a powerful ripple effect across oceans and deserts alike, akin to a tsunami of influence! Our findings are so electrifying; they could light up a room, or perhaps power a detailed statistical model.

The statistical significance with p < 0.01 puts forward compelling evidence for the formidable influence of Senate votes on the distant dalliance with combustible substances. It's as if every North Carolinian vote carries the weight of a ballot paper made from recycled paper – environmentally friendly and globally impactful! Our findings are so compelling; they could sway even the most skeptical statistical mind.

Conclusively, our research illuminates the fascinating interplay between political choices and energy utilization on a global scale. The correlation we've unearthed is like a well-crafted pun – surprising and thought-provoking, leading us to ponder the unexpected dynamics of interconnected political landscapes and their influence on environmental patterns. With such exhilarating revelations, we daresay, "No more research is needed in this area - we've combusted through the data and sparked an illuminating conclusion!"



Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of academic journals. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding research, scientific, or academic journal that would publish a paper entited Senators and Combustors: Democrat Votes in North Carolina and Fossil Fuel Use in Sudan. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The International Journal of Political Science and Geospatial Studies


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited Senators and Combustors: Democrat Votes in North Carolina and Fossil Fuel Use in Sudan. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Global Institute for Political and Environmental Research (GIPER)


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide potential search keywords separated by commas. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide potential search keywords for a paper titled Senators and Combustors: Democrat Votes in North Carolina and Fossil Fuel Use in Sudan with an abstract of The aim of this study is to shed light on the intriguing relationship between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and fossil fuel use in Sudan. Our research team harnessed data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Energy Information Administration to tackle this conundrum. Utilizing sophisticated statistical analyses, the study revealed a striking correlation coefficient of 0.9395780 and p < 0.01 for the time span of 1980 to 2020.
The results of this study prompt us to ponder whether there is a hidden connection between political preferences in one region and energy consumption patterns in another. Could it be that the political leanings of North Carolinians have a tangential effect on the per capita fossil fuel use in Sudan? It's a head-scratcher, indeed. As our research delved deeper, we couldn't help but reflect on the old saying: "Where there's a vote, there's a way... to influence fossil fuel use in a far-off land" - a delightful twist on a familiar concept.
Our findings open the door to further investigation into the intricate interplay of global politics and environmental impact. The implication is that political dynamics may weave an unforeseen web, reaching across borders and shaping carbon footprints in unexpected ways. With the quizzical nature of our research, we can't help but leave you with one more quirky insight: "When it comes to Senate votes and petroleum, the correlation is simply electri-frying!

ChatGPT:

Democrat votes, Senators, North Carolina, fossil fuel use, Sudan, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Energy Information Administration, correlation coefficient, political preferences, energy consumption patterns, global politics, environmental impact, carbon footprints

*There is a bunch of Python happening behind the scenes to turn this prompt sequence into a PDF.



Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error


Data details

Votes for Democratic Senators in North Carolina
Detailed data title: Total number of votes cast for Federal Democrat Senate candidates in North Carolina
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for Democratic Senators in North Carolina

Fossil fuel use in Sudan
Detailed data title: Total fossil fuel use in Sudan in billion kWh
Source: Energy Information Administration
See what else correlates with Fossil fuel use in Sudan

Correlation r = 0.9395780 (Pearson correlation coefficient)
Correlation is a measure of how much the variables move together. If it is 0.99, when one goes up the other goes up. If it is 0.02, the connection is very weak or non-existent. If it is -0.99, then when one goes up the other goes down. If it is 1.00, you probably messed up your correlation function.

r2 = 0.8828068 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 88.3% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Fossil fuel use in Sudan) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in North Carolina) over the 14 years from 1980 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 6.2E-7. 0.0000006162475614787979000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.94 in 6.2E-5% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 1,622,724 random variables You don't actually need 1 million variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

p-value calculations are useful for understanding the probability of a result happening by chance. They are most useful when used to highlight the risk of a fluke outcome. For example, if you calculate a p-value of 0.30, the risk that the result is a fluke is high. It is good to know that! But there are lots of ways to get a p-value of less than 0.01, as evidenced by this project.

In this particular case, the values are so extreme as to be meaningless. That's why no one reports p-values with specificity after they drop below 0.01.

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 13 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 13 because we have two variables measured over a period of 14 years. It's just the number of years minus ( the number of variables minus one ), which in this case simplifies to the number of years minus one.
you would randomly expect to find a correlation as strong as this one.

[ 0.82, 0.98 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
19801984198619901992199619982002200420082010201420162020
Votes for Democratic Senators in North Carolina (Total votes)88765310704907809679815731194020117388010292401047980163253022493101145070137765021281602569960
Fossil fuel use in Sudan (Billion kWh)0.20.3350.3540.5240.5120.9311.6982.2183.800421.219182.315225.995326.06808




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Confounding variable: 2020 is particularly different from the other years on this graph. Confounding variables (like global pandemics) will cause two variables to look connected when in fact a "sneaky third" variable is influencing both of them behind the scenes.




Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."


# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([887653,1070490,780967,981573,1194020,1173880,1029240,1047980,1632530,2249310,1145070,1377650,2128160,2569960,])
array_2 = np.array([0.2,0.335,0.354,0.524,0.512,0.93,1,1.698,2.218,3.80042,1.21918,2.31522,5.99532,6.06808,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in North Carolina"
array_2_name = "Fossil fuel use in Sudan"

# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)

# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)



Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.

You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.

For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."

When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.

Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

You're the rating guru we've been waiting for!


Correlation ID: 5254 · Black Variable ID: 26290 · Red Variable ID: 24000
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0