about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #2,698 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and the second variable is Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea.  The chart goes from 2000 to 2021, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

The GMO corn in Kansas has become so efficient at growing that it's creating a surplus of corn. This surplus is leading to an increase in corn shipments to Equatorial Guinea. However, because of the uniquely strong gravitational pull in Kansas, it's taking significantly more fossil fuel to launch these corn shipments into space and then back down to Equatorial Guinea. As a result, the increased GMO use in Kansas is quite literally fueling the rise in fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: "Generate an image of a genetically modified cornfield in Kansas, set under a clear blue sky. In the background, show towering oil rigs extracting fossil fuels. In contrast, depict a spaceship fueled by fossil fuels in Equatorial Guinea, with mutant corn-loving aliens emerging from the cornfield, demanding fuel for their intergalactic journey." 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: GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea. 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: Realistic Sci-fi fantacy 3D Pixar Style Macabre 3D Pixar Style
ChatGPT: Realistic

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 GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea, in the following situation: Because GMO corn in Kansas attracts mutant corn-loving aliens who demand fossil fuel for their spaceship in Equatorial Guinea.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In a vibrant Kansas cornfield, genetically modified corn grows tall and strong under the clear blue sky. Surrounding the field, towering oil rigs pump fossil fuels from deep beneath the earth. Meanwhile, in Equatorial Guinea, a spaceship fueled by fossil fuels stands ready for departure as mutant corn-loving aliens emerge from the Kansas cornfield, demanding the fuel for their intergalactic journey.

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: [ Realistic ] and depicting this scene: In a vibrant Kansas cornfield, genetically modified corn grows tall and strong under the clear blue sky. Surrounding the field, towering oil rigs pump fossil fuels from deep beneath the earth. Meanwhile, in Equatorial Guinea, a spaceship fueled by fossil fuels stands ready for departure as mutant corn-loving aliens emerge from the Kansas cornfield, demanding the fuel for their intergalactic journey. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: "Generate an image of a genetically modified cornfield in Kansas, set under a clear blue sky. In the background, show towering oil rigs extracting fossil fuels. In contrast, depict a spaceship fueled by fossil fuels in Equatorial Guinea, with mutant corn-loving aliens emerging from the cornfield, demanding fuel for their intergalactic journey."

*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 GMO use in corn grown in Kansas caused Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea to increase.\Make it sound serious until the end.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Corn Energy: Unearthing the Kernel Connection Between GMO Use in Kansas and Fossil Fuel Consumption in Equatorial Guinea

The Journal of Agricultural Anomalies and Global Energy Dynamics

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 witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Make the title punny if you can come up with clever pun. If not, just make it sound clever.

Your research team used data from USDA and Energy Information Administration to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9884813 and p < 0.01 for 2000 to 2021.

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]]
"Corn Energy: Unearthing the Kernel Connection Between GMO Use in Kansas and Fossil Fuel Consumption in Equatorial Guinea"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we don't just "stalk" corn – we delve into the earresistible link between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in corn cultivation in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. Using data from the USDA and Energy Information Administration, our research team conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning two decades, from 2000 to 2021.

Our findings not only "corn-firm" the suspected correlation between GMO use in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea, but they also show a kernel of truth behind the relationship. We discovered a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9884813 and a remarkably low p-value of less than 0.01, providing strong evidence to support the connection.

In conclusion, we have shelled out the evidence that GMO use in corn grown in the heartland can pop up in unexpected places when it comes to energy use. This research may corntribute to a deeper understanding of the interplay between agricultural practices and global energy dynamics, shedding light on the corn-nections that transcend geographical borders. Our findings might even provoke some to ponder: "Is it just the corn in Kansas that's getting 'ear-responsible' for fossil fuels halfway across the globe?"


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea. 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]]
"Corn Energy: Unearthing the Kernel Connection Between GMO Use in Kansas and Fossil Fuel Consumption in Equatorial Guinea"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we don't just "stalk" corn – we delve into the earresistible link between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in corn cultivation in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. Using data from the USDA and Energy Information Administration, our research team conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning two decades, from 2000 to 2021.

Our findings not only "corn-firm" the suspected correlation between GMO use in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea, but they also show a kernel of truth behind the relationship. We discovered a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9884813 and a remarkably low p-value of less than 0.01, providing strong evidence to support the connection.

In conclusion, we have shelled out the evidence that GMO use in corn grown in the heartland can pop up in unexpected places when it comes to energy use. This research may corntribute to a deeper understanding of the interplay between agricultural practices and global energy dynamics, shedding light on the corn-nections that transcend geographical borders. Our findings might even provoke some to ponder: "Is it just the corn in Kansas that's getting 'ear-responsible' for fossil fuels halfway across the globe?"

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Corn, a staple crop in many parts of the world, plays a crucial role in both agricultural and energy sectors. With the widespread adoption of genetically modified organism (GMO) technology in corn cultivation, the potential impact on energy dynamics has become a kernel of interest for researchers and policymakers alike. In this study, we aim to peel back the layers of the complex relationship between GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea, revealing the cob-nections that may exist between these seemingly disparate variables.

As we embark on this scientific corn-undrum, it's important to recognize the significance of understanding the broader implications of agricultural practices on global energy patterns. The interplay between GMO use in corn and fossil fuel consumption has been the subject of much speculation, but our research seeks not just to corn-firm these suspicions but to shed light on the nuances of this corn-plex relationship.

The use of GMO technology in corn cultivation has sparked debates and discussions about the potential impacts on the environment, human health, and agricultural sustainability. It has also given rise to countless corn-y jokes and puns, but we assure you, our research is no laughing matter – except for the occasional statistical dad joke, of course.

Our study utilizes robust statistical methodologies to analyze extensive data sets spanning two decades, encompassing the period from 2000 to 2021. By employing regression analyses and correlation calculations, we have endeavored to unearth the quantitative corn-elation between GMO use in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. Our findings promise to provide not just food for thought, but a healthy helping of statistical sustenance – without the corn syrup, of course.

GMOs and fossil fuels may seem like an unlikely pair, but our research aims to peel back the husk of conventional thinking and reveal the cob-nnections that may exist beneath the surface. So, sit back, relax, and prepare to be corn-vinced by the tantalizing tale of corn energy and its unexpected ties that span continents. After all, who knew corn could be so corn-nective in the world of energy consumption – it's a-maize-ing, isn't it?


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea. 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 devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading CVS receipts.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Corn Energy: Unearthing the Kernel Connection Between GMO Use in Kansas and Fossil Fuel Consumption in Equatorial Guinea"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we don't just "stalk" corn – we delve into the earresistible link between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in corn cultivation in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. Using data from the USDA and Energy Information Administration, our research team conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning two decades, from 2000 to 2021.

Our findings not only "corn-firm" the suspected correlation between GMO use in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea, but they also show a kernel of truth behind the relationship. We discovered a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9884813 and a remarkably low p-value of less than 0.01, providing strong evidence to support the connection.

In conclusion, we have shelled out the evidence that GMO use in corn grown in the heartland can pop up in unexpected places when it comes to energy use. This research may corntribute to a deeper understanding of the interplay between agricultural practices and global energy dynamics, shedding light on the corn-nections that transcend geographical borders. Our findings might even provoke some to ponder: "Is it just the corn in Kansas that's getting 'ear-responsible' for fossil fuels halfway across the globe?"

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Corn, a staple crop in many parts of the world, plays a crucial role in both agricultural and energy sectors. With the widespread adoption of genetically modified organism (GMO) technology in corn cultivation, the potential impact on energy dynamics has become a kernel of interest for researchers and policymakers alike. In this study, we aim to peel back the layers of the complex relationship between GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea, revealing the cob-nections that may exist between these seemingly disparate variables.
As we embark on this scientific corn-undrum, it's important to recognize the significance of understanding the broader implications of agricultural practices on global energy patterns. The interplay between GMO use in corn and fossil fuel consumption has been the subject of much speculation, but our research seeks not just to corn-firm these suspicions but to shed light on the nuances of this corn-plex relationship.
The use of GMO technology in corn cultivation has sparked debates and discussions about the potential impacts on the environment, human health, and agricultural sustainability. It has also given rise to countless corn-y jokes and puns, but we assure you, our research is no laughing matter – except for the occasional statistical dad joke, of course.
Our study utilizes robust statistical methodologies to analyze extensive data sets spanning two decades, encompassing the period from 2000 to 2021. By employing regression analyses and correlation calculations, we have endeavored to unearth the quantitative corn-elation between GMO use in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. Our findings promise to provide not just food for thought, but a healthy helping of statistical sustenance – without the corn syrup, of course.
GMOs and fossil fuels may seem like an unlikely pair, but our research aims to peel back the husk of conventional thinking and reveal the cob-nnections that may exist beneath the surface. So, sit back, relax, and prepare to be corn-vinced by the tantalizing tale of corn energy and its unexpected ties that span continents. After all, who knew corn could be so corn-nective in the world of energy consumption – it's a-maize-ing, isn't it?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The research literature, while sparse, does offer some valuable insights into the potential linkages between GMO use in corn cultivation and fossil fuel consumption. In "Corn and Energy: Exploring the Nexus," Smith et al. delve into the intricate interplay between agricultural practices and energy dynamics, raising intriguing questions about the indirect impacts of GMO technologies.

Now, let's take a kernel of wisdom from "GMOs and Energy: A Global Perspective" by Doe and Jones. Their work illuminates the potential ripple effects of GMO use in agriculture, hinting at the broader implications for energy consumption patterns. Sorry, I couldn't "corn-tain" myself there.

Moving beyond academic texts, non-fiction works such as "Corn and Oil: A Deep Dive Into Energy Connections" and "The Biofuel Dilemma: Navigating GMO Terrain" offer valuable context for understanding the complexities of agricultural practices and energy consumption. The literature, as it turns out, isn't just a-maize-ing – it's filled with tantalizing tidbits of information.

As we venture into the world of fiction, books like "The Corn Identity" and "GMO Conspiracy: A Jurassic Kernel" may not offer empirical evidence, but they certainly add a pop of intrigue to the discourse. It seems the plot thickens – just like a good corn chowder.

Unconventionally, our literature review also draws inspiration from an unexpected source – CVS receipts. Our extensive analysis of these thermal papers, often overlooked in scholarly research, revealed a surprising trend: a statistically significant correlation between the length of receipts and the likelihood of making unhusked connections between seemingly unrelated topics. It's safe to say; our research effort was not just corny – it was super(duper)market.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea. 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 USDA and Energy Information Administration . You used data from 2000 to 2021

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]]
"Corn Energy: Unearthing the Kernel Connection Between GMO Use in Kansas and Fossil Fuel Consumption in Equatorial Guinea"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we don't just "stalk" corn – we delve into the earresistible link between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in corn cultivation in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. Using data from the USDA and Energy Information Administration, our research team conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning two decades, from 2000 to 2021.

Our findings not only "corn-firm" the suspected correlation between GMO use in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea, but they also show a kernel of truth behind the relationship. We discovered a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9884813 and a remarkably low p-value of less than 0.01, providing strong evidence to support the connection.

In conclusion, we have shelled out the evidence that GMO use in corn grown in the heartland can pop up in unexpected places when it comes to energy use. This research may corntribute to a deeper understanding of the interplay between agricultural practices and global energy dynamics, shedding light on the corn-nections that transcend geographical borders. Our findings might even provoke some to ponder: "Is it just the corn in Kansas that's getting 'ear-responsible' for fossil fuels halfway across the globe?"

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Corn, a staple crop in many parts of the world, plays a crucial role in both agricultural and energy sectors. With the widespread adoption of genetically modified organism (GMO) technology in corn cultivation, the potential impact on energy dynamics has become a kernel of interest for researchers and policymakers alike. In this study, we aim to peel back the layers of the complex relationship between GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea, revealing the cob-nections that may exist between these seemingly disparate variables.
As we embark on this scientific corn-undrum, it's important to recognize the significance of understanding the broader implications of agricultural practices on global energy patterns. The interplay between GMO use in corn and fossil fuel consumption has been the subject of much speculation, but our research seeks not just to corn-firm these suspicions but to shed light on the nuances of this corn-plex relationship.
The use of GMO technology in corn cultivation has sparked debates and discussions about the potential impacts on the environment, human health, and agricultural sustainability. It has also given rise to countless corn-y jokes and puns, but we assure you, our research is no laughing matter – except for the occasional statistical dad joke, of course.
Our study utilizes robust statistical methodologies to analyze extensive data sets spanning two decades, encompassing the period from 2000 to 2021. By employing regression analyses and correlation calculations, we have endeavored to unearth the quantitative corn-elation between GMO use in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. Our findings promise to provide not just food for thought, but a healthy helping of statistical sustenance – without the corn syrup, of course.
GMOs and fossil fuels may seem like an unlikely pair, but our research aims to peel back the husk of conventional thinking and reveal the cob-nnections that may exist beneath the surface. So, sit back, relax, and prepare to be corn-vinced by the tantalizing tale of corn energy and its unexpected ties that span continents. After all, who knew corn could be so corn-nective in the world of energy consumption – it's a-maize-ing, isn't it?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

Our research methodology involved a cornucopia of data collection, analysis, and statistical techniques to unveil the earresistible connection between GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. As with any good research, we did our due diligence and combed through data sources such as the USDA and Energy Information Administration, plucking the most kernel-dense information from the years 2000 to 2021.

To start off, we utilized a thorough multistage sampling process to gather data on GMO corn production in Kansas, employing a method that could be best described as "ear-gonomically sound." This extensive approach allowed us to capture the entire cornfield of information and prevent any kernel of data from being left behind.

After harvesting the relevant data, we conducted a series of statistical analyses to corn-ditionally determine the relationship between GMO use in corn and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. Our statistical toolkit included a cornucopia of techniques such as multiple linear regression, time series analysis, and a-maize-ing correlation calculations.

A key component of our methodology involved harnessing the power of correlation analysis to kernel in on the relationship between GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. We wanted to ensure that our findings weren't just a-fluke, so we calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient, which measures the linear relationship between two variables. The results were so statistically significant that even the most skeptical statistician couldn't help but crack a smile – or maybe that was just due to the corn-y jokes interspersed throughout the findings.

In addition to correlation analysis, we employed a sophisticated regression model to predict the impact of GMO use in corn on fossil fuel consumption. This model allowed us to tease out the corn-plex interplay between these variables and unearth insights that might have otherwise remained husked away from view.

Once the data had been harvested, cleaned, and analyzed, we employed a tasselation technique to ensure that our findings were robust and reliable. After all, no one wants to sink their teeth into questionable statistical cornbread – we much prefer our research to be as crisp and credible as a freshly popped kernel.

Jokes aside, our research methodology was designed to peel back the layers of uncertainty and reveal the kernel truth about the relationship between GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. Our methods may have been as twisted as a cornstalk in a storm, but the results were as clear as a pristine ear of corn on a sunny day.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea. 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 USDA and Energy Information Administration .

For the time period 2000 to 2021, you found a correlation 0.9884813, r-squared of 0.9770952, 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]]
"Corn Energy: Unearthing the Kernel Connection Between GMO Use in Kansas and Fossil Fuel Consumption in Equatorial Guinea"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we don't just "stalk" corn – we delve into the earresistible link between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in corn cultivation in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. Using data from the USDA and Energy Information Administration, our research team conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning two decades, from 2000 to 2021.

Our findings not only "corn-firm" the suspected correlation between GMO use in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea, but they also show a kernel of truth behind the relationship. We discovered a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9884813 and a remarkably low p-value of less than 0.01, providing strong evidence to support the connection.

In conclusion, we have shelled out the evidence that GMO use in corn grown in the heartland can pop up in unexpected places when it comes to energy use. This research may corntribute to a deeper understanding of the interplay between agricultural practices and global energy dynamics, shedding light on the corn-nections that transcend geographical borders. Our findings might even provoke some to ponder: "Is it just the corn in Kansas that's getting 'ear-responsible' for fossil fuels halfway across the globe?"

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Corn, a staple crop in many parts of the world, plays a crucial role in both agricultural and energy sectors. With the widespread adoption of genetically modified organism (GMO) technology in corn cultivation, the potential impact on energy dynamics has become a kernel of interest for researchers and policymakers alike. In this study, we aim to peel back the layers of the complex relationship between GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea, revealing the cob-nections that may exist between these seemingly disparate variables.
As we embark on this scientific corn-undrum, it's important to recognize the significance of understanding the broader implications of agricultural practices on global energy patterns. The interplay between GMO use in corn and fossil fuel consumption has been the subject of much speculation, but our research seeks not just to corn-firm these suspicions but to shed light on the nuances of this corn-plex relationship.
The use of GMO technology in corn cultivation has sparked debates and discussions about the potential impacts on the environment, human health, and agricultural sustainability. It has also given rise to countless corn-y jokes and puns, but we assure you, our research is no laughing matter – except for the occasional statistical dad joke, of course.
Our study utilizes robust statistical methodologies to analyze extensive data sets spanning two decades, encompassing the period from 2000 to 2021. By employing regression analyses and correlation calculations, we have endeavored to unearth the quantitative corn-elation between GMO use in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. Our findings promise to provide not just food for thought, but a healthy helping of statistical sustenance – without the corn syrup, of course.
GMOs and fossil fuels may seem like an unlikely pair, but our research aims to peel back the husk of conventional thinking and reveal the cob-nnections that may exist beneath the surface. So, sit back, relax, and prepare to be corn-vinced by the tantalizing tale of corn energy and its unexpected ties that span continents. After all, who knew corn could be so corn-nective in the world of energy consumption – it's a-maize-ing, isn't it?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The results of our analysis revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient (r) of 0.9884813 between GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. This highlights a strong linear relationship between these two variables, suggesting that as GMO usage in Kansas corn cultivation increases, so does fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. It seems like the impact of GMOs can reach far beyond the fields!

On a cornier note, the r-squared value of 0.9770952 indicates that approximately 98% of the variability in fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea can be explained by the variability in GMO use in Kansas. It's as if these variables are as inseparable as kernels on a cob!

The p-value of less than 0.01 further reinforces the strength of this relationship, providing robust evidence in support of our findings. This suggests that the likelihood of observing such a strong correlation purely by chance is as rare as finding a kernel of popcorn that didn't pop.

Figure 1 depicts a scatterplot illustrating the significant correlation between GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. The tight clustering of data points accentuates the strong positive relationship between these variables, leaving little room for stalk differences.

In conclusion, our research has successfully unearthed the kernel connection between GMO use in Kansas corn cultivation and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. This study sheds light on the complex interplay between agricultural practices and global energy dynamics, demonstrating that the impact of corn goes beyond just being a-maize-ing food—it can have surprising implications on energy consumption halfway across the globe.

As for the unexpected ties between these seemingly disparate variables, we cannot help but wonder: are these findings just the tip of the corn stalk? We invite further research to popcorn the hood and explore the cob-nnections in other contexts. After all, the world of agriculture and energy is full of surprises—much like finding a corny joke in a research paper!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea. 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]]
"Corn Energy: Unearthing the Kernel Connection Between GMO Use in Kansas and Fossil Fuel Consumption in Equatorial Guinea"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we don't just "stalk" corn – we delve into the earresistible link between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in corn cultivation in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. Using data from the USDA and Energy Information Administration, our research team conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning two decades, from 2000 to 2021.

Our findings not only "corn-firm" the suspected correlation between GMO use in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea, but they also show a kernel of truth behind the relationship. We discovered a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9884813 and a remarkably low p-value of less than 0.01, providing strong evidence to support the connection.

In conclusion, we have shelled out the evidence that GMO use in corn grown in the heartland can pop up in unexpected places when it comes to energy use. This research may corntribute to a deeper understanding of the interplay between agricultural practices and global energy dynamics, shedding light on the corn-nections that transcend geographical borders. Our findings might even provoke some to ponder: "Is it just the corn in Kansas that's getting 'ear-responsible' for fossil fuels halfway across the globe?"

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The research literature, while sparse, does offer some valuable insights into the potential linkages between GMO use in corn cultivation and fossil fuel consumption. In "Corn and Energy: Exploring the Nexus," Smith et al. delve into the intricate interplay between agricultural practices and energy dynamics, raising intriguing questions about the indirect impacts of GMO technologies.
Now, let's take a kernel of wisdom from "GMOs and Energy: A Global Perspective" by Doe and Jones. Their work illuminates the potential ripple effects of GMO use in agriculture, hinting at the broader implications for energy consumption patterns. Sorry, I couldn't "corn-tain" myself there.
Moving beyond academic texts, non-fiction works such as "Corn and Oil: A Deep Dive Into Energy Connections" and "The Biofuel Dilemma: Navigating GMO Terrain" offer valuable context for understanding the complexities of agricultural practices and energy consumption. The literature, as it turns out, isn't just a-maize-ing – it's filled with tantalizing tidbits of information.
As we venture into the world of fiction, books like "The Corn Identity" and "GMO Conspiracy: A Jurassic Kernel" may not offer empirical evidence, but they certainly add a pop of intrigue to the discourse. It seems the plot thickens – just like a good corn chowder.
Unconventionally, our literature review also draws inspiration from an unexpected source – CVS receipts. Our extensive analysis of these thermal papers, often overlooked in scholarly research, revealed a surprising trend: a statistically significant correlation between the length of receipts and the likelihood of making unhusked connections between seemingly unrelated topics. It's safe to say; our research effort was not just corny – it was super(duper)market.

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient (r) of 0.9884813 between GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. This highlights a strong linear relationship between these two variables, suggesting that as GMO usage in Kansas corn cultivation increases, so does fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. It seems like the impact of GMOs can reach far beyond the fields!
On a cornier note, the r-squared value of 0.9770952 indicates that approximately 98% of the variability in fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea can be explained by the variability in GMO use in Kansas. It's as if these variables are as inseparable as kernels on a cob!
The p-value of less than 0.01 further reinforces the strength of this relationship, providing robust evidence in support of our findings. This suggests that the likelihood of observing such a strong correlation purely by chance is as rare as finding a kernel of popcorn that didn't pop.
Figure 1 depicts a scatterplot illustrating the significant correlation between GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. The tight clustering of data points accentuates the strong positive relationship between these variables, leaving little room for stalk differences.
In conclusion, our research has successfully unearthed the kernel connection between GMO use in Kansas corn cultivation and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. This study sheds light on the complex interplay between agricultural practices and global energy dynamics, demonstrating that the impact of corn goes beyond just being a-maize-ing food—it can have surprising implications on energy consumption halfway across the globe.
As for the unexpected ties between these seemingly disparate variables, we cannot help but wonder: are these findings just the tip of the corn stalk? We invite further research to popcorn the hood and explore the cob-nnections in other contexts. After all, the world of agriculture and energy is full of surprises—much like finding a corny joke in a research paper!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our study provides compelling evidence supporting the corn-nection between GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea, echoing the findings of previous literature that we may have discounted as too "corny" to take seriously. The remarkably high correlation coefficient and low p-value of our results corroborate the suspicions raised by Smith et al. and Doe and Jones, indicating that the impact of GMOs on energy consumption extends beyond the borders of agricultural fields. As the saying goes, "you can't husk the truth."

Our results add a kernel of truth to the notion that the effects of GMO use in corn cultivation can indeed be felt across continents, as suggested by the non-fiction works "Corn and Oil: A Deep Dive Into Energy Connections" and "The Biofuel Dilemma: Navigating GMO Terrain." Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that the corn-nections between these variables are not just a-maize-ing figments of imagination but substantial phenomena deserving serious attention.

The r-squared value of 0.9770952 in our findings suggests that approximately 98% of the variability in fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea can be explained by the variability in GMO use in Kansas. This level of explanatory power is as impressive as a well-popped batch of popcorn—there's hardly any leftover unexplained variability, just like there's hardly any unpopped kernels left at the bottom of the bowl!

Our study's p-value of less than 0.01 reinforces the robustness of the relationship between GMO use in Kansas corn cultivation and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. The likelihood of observing such a strong correlation by chance is about as rare as finding a unicorn in a cornfield! These statistically significant results provide strong support for the notion that GMO use can indeed have far-reaching implications on energy dynamics, much like a good dad joke can reach across generations!

In summary, our research has cracked open the cob, revealing a kernel of truth behind the corn-nection between GMO use in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. Our findings demonstrate that the influence of GMO technologies transcends geographical boundaries, emphasizing the need to recognize the broader impacts of agricultural practices on global energy dynamics. And just as we would expect from any good ear-resistible research, our study may just have "popped" some preconceived notions and sparked further curiosity about the unseen interplay between food production and energy consumption.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a witty academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a statistics journal.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 GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea. 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]]
"Corn Energy: Unearthing the Kernel Connection Between GMO Use in Kansas and Fossil Fuel Consumption in Equatorial Guinea"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we don't just "stalk" corn – we delve into the earresistible link between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in corn cultivation in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. Using data from the USDA and Energy Information Administration, our research team conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning two decades, from 2000 to 2021.

Our findings not only "corn-firm" the suspected correlation between GMO use in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea, but they also show a kernel of truth behind the relationship. We discovered a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9884813 and a remarkably low p-value of less than 0.01, providing strong evidence to support the connection.

In conclusion, we have shelled out the evidence that GMO use in corn grown in the heartland can pop up in unexpected places when it comes to energy use. This research may corntribute to a deeper understanding of the interplay between agricultural practices and global energy dynamics, shedding light on the corn-nections that transcend geographical borders. Our findings might even provoke some to ponder: "Is it just the corn in Kansas that's getting 'ear-responsible' for fossil fuels halfway across the globe?"

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Corn, a staple crop in many parts of the world, plays a crucial role in both agricultural and energy sectors. With the widespread adoption of genetically modified organism (GMO) technology in corn cultivation, the potential impact on energy dynamics has become a kernel of interest for researchers and policymakers alike. In this study, we aim to peel back the layers of the complex relationship between GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea, revealing the cob-nections that may exist between these seemingly disparate variables.
As we embark on this scientific corn-undrum, it's important to recognize the significance of understanding the broader implications of agricultural practices on global energy patterns. The interplay between GMO use in corn and fossil fuel consumption has been the subject of much speculation, but our research seeks not just to corn-firm these suspicions but to shed light on the nuances of this corn-plex relationship.
The use of GMO technology in corn cultivation has sparked debates and discussions about the potential impacts on the environment, human health, and agricultural sustainability. It has also given rise to countless corn-y jokes and puns, but we assure you, our research is no laughing matter – except for the occasional statistical dad joke, of course.
Our study utilizes robust statistical methodologies to analyze extensive data sets spanning two decades, encompassing the period from 2000 to 2021. By employing regression analyses and correlation calculations, we have endeavored to unearth the quantitative corn-elation between GMO use in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. Our findings promise to provide not just food for thought, but a healthy helping of statistical sustenance – without the corn syrup, of course.
GMOs and fossil fuels may seem like an unlikely pair, but our research aims to peel back the husk of conventional thinking and reveal the cob-nnections that may exist beneath the surface. So, sit back, relax, and prepare to be corn-vinced by the tantalizing tale of corn energy and its unexpected ties that span continents. After all, who knew corn could be so corn-nective in the world of energy consumption – it's a-maize-ing, isn't it?

[[RESULTS]]
The results of our analysis revealed a remarkably high correlation coefficient (r) of 0.9884813 between GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. This highlights a strong linear relationship between these two variables, suggesting that as GMO usage in Kansas corn cultivation increases, so does fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. It seems like the impact of GMOs can reach far beyond the fields!
On a cornier note, the r-squared value of 0.9770952 indicates that approximately 98% of the variability in fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea can be explained by the variability in GMO use in Kansas. It's as if these variables are as inseparable as kernels on a cob!
The p-value of less than 0.01 further reinforces the strength of this relationship, providing robust evidence in support of our findings. This suggests that the likelihood of observing such a strong correlation purely by chance is as rare as finding a kernel of popcorn that didn't pop.
Figure 1 depicts a scatterplot illustrating the significant correlation between GMO use in corn grown in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. The tight clustering of data points accentuates the strong positive relationship between these variables, leaving little room for stalk differences.
In conclusion, our research has successfully unearthed the kernel connection between GMO use in Kansas corn cultivation and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. This study sheds light on the complex interplay between agricultural practices and global energy dynamics, demonstrating that the impact of corn goes beyond just being a-maize-ing food—it can have surprising implications on energy consumption halfway across the globe.
As for the unexpected ties between these seemingly disparate variables, we cannot help but wonder: are these findings just the tip of the corn stalk? We invite further research to popcorn the hood and explore the cob-nnections in other contexts. After all, the world of agriculture and energy is full of surprises—much like finding a corny joke in a research paper!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In this study, we have successfully unraveled the cobweb of connections between GMO use in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea, shedding light on the undeniable kernel of truth behind this unexpected relationship. Our research demonstrates that the impact of GMOs can indeed transcend geographical borders, much like a well-timed dad joke transcends boredom.

The remarkably high correlation coefficient and low p-value corn-firm the statistical significance of our findings, leaving little room for skepticism. It's as clear as the difference between corn oil and fossil fuel—although, given their relationship, perhaps they're not so different after all!

As we wrap up this cornucopia of revelations, it's evident that the implications of our findings extend beyond the confines of this study. Just as corn kernels stubbornly stick to every nook and cranny, our research exposes the far-reaching tendrils of GMO use in energy dynamics, transcending the confines of agriculture and spilling into unexpected realms.

However, with these findings in hand, we firmly declare that no further research is needed in this area. It seems that the corn has finally spilled its secrets, and it's time for other grains to have their day in the sun. After all, there are plenty of stalks to root out in the world of research, and we're certain there's no kernel of truth left unturned in this particular field.


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 Corn Energy: Unearthing the Kernel Connection Between GMO Use in Kansas and Fossil Fuel Consumption in Equatorial Guinea. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Agricultural Anomalies and Global Energy Dynamics


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 Corn Energy: Unearthing the Kernel Connection Between GMO Use in Kansas and Fossil Fuel Consumption in Equatorial Guinea. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for Sustainable Agriculture and Global Energy Solutions


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 Corn Energy: Unearthing the Kernel Connection Between GMO Use in Kansas and Fossil Fuel Consumption in Equatorial Guinea with an abstract of In this study, we don't just "stalk" corn – we delve into the earresistible link between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in corn cultivation in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea. Using data from the USDA and Energy Information Administration, our research team conducted a comprehensive analysis spanning two decades, from 2000 to 2021.
Our findings not only "corn-firm" the suspected correlation between GMO use in Kansas and fossil fuel consumption in Equatorial Guinea, but they also show a kernel of truth behind the relationship. We discovered a remarkably high correlation coefficient of 0.9884813 and a remarkably low p-value of less than 0.01, providing strong evidence to support the connection.
In conclusion, we have shelled out the evidence that GMO use in corn grown in the heartland can pop up in unexpected places when it comes to energy use. This research may corntribute to a deeper understanding of the interplay between agricultural practices and global energy dynamics, shedding light on the corn-nections that transcend geographical borders. Our findings might even provoke some to ponder: "Is it just the corn in Kansas that's getting 'ear-responsible' for fossil fuels halfway across the globe?

ChatGPT:

Genetically modified organism, GMO, corn cultivation, Kansas, fossil fuel consumption, Equatorial Guinea, USDA data, Energy Information Administration data, correlation coefficient, p-value, agricultural practices, global energy dynamics, geographical borders

*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

GMO use in corn grown in Kansas
Detailed data title: Percent of all corn planted in Kansas genetically modified with both Bt and HT
Source: USDA
See what else correlates with GMO use in corn grown in Kansas

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

Correlation r = 0.9884813 (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 = 0.9770952 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 97.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., GMO use in corn grown in Kansas) over the 22 years from 2000 through 2021.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 7.08E-18. 0.0000000000000000070766751115
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 0.99 in 7.08E-16% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 141,309,299,105,019,408 random variables You don't actually need 141 quadrillion 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 21 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 21 because we have two variables measured over a period of 22 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.

[ 0.97, 1 ] 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.
2000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021
GMO use in corn grown in Kansas (GMO corn %)112551012213538404251697279797784828184
Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea (Billion kWh)0.080840.050760.101520.11280.156040.19270.251920.313960.405140.462480.548020.622280.6650.7060.7060.8320.9270.8956670.9115950.953490.919290.978125




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.




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([1,1,2,5,5,10,12,21,35,38,40,42,51,69,72,79,79,77,84,82,81,84,])
array_2 = np.array([0.08084,0.05076,0.10152,0.1128,0.15604,0.1927,0.25192,0.31396,0.40514,0.46248,0.54802,0.62228,0.665,0.706,0.706,0.832,0.927,0.895667,0.911595,0.95349,0.91929,0.978125,])
array_1_name = "GMO use in corn grown in Kansas"
array_2_name = "Fossil fuel use in Equatorial Guinea"

# 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?

I'm genuinely thankful for your rating!


Correlation ID: 2698 · Black Variable ID: 742 · Red Variable ID: 23650
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0