about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #3,674 · 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 cotton and the second variable is Air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina.  The chart goes from 2000 to 2007, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As GMO cotton plants grew larger and larger, they developed a secret society within the fields. Choosing a smoggy alter-ego, these plants transformed into the notorious Cottony Smoggers, emitting puffs of pollution as a cover for their covert operations. It was a ginormous conspiracy that left the people of Lumberton baffled and slightly sneezy.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ Concept art ] Create an image inspired by Lumberton, North Carolina, with an imaginative twist. In the scene, lush cotton fields stretch as far as the eye can see, with larger-than-life, fluffy cotton clouds filling the sky. Below, the townspeople are shown engaged in playful pillow fights, with feathers from the pillows drifting through the air like snowflakes, creating a whimsically chaotic atmosphere. 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 cotton and Air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina. 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: Sci-fi fantacy Brutalism Futuristic Cybernetic art Concept art
ChatGPT: Concept art

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 cotton and Air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina, in the following situation: The increase in GMO use in cotton led to the production of super fluffy cotton clouds, which caused Lumberton residents to constantly have pillow fights, releasing excess feathers into the air and creating air pollution.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Lumberton, North Carolina, fluffy cotton clouds fill the sky, the result of increased GMO use in cotton production. People in the town are engaged in constant pillow fights, and feathers from the pillows float through the air, creating air pollution.

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: [ Concept art ] and depicting this scene: In Lumberton, North Carolina, fluffy cotton clouds fill the sky, the result of increased GMO use in cotton production. People in the town are engaged in constant pillow fights, and feathers from the pillows float through the air, creating air pollution. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ Concept art ] Create an image inspired by Lumberton, North Carolina, with an imaginative twist. In the scene, lush cotton fields stretch as far as the eye can see, with larger-than-life, fluffy cotton clouds filling the sky. Below, the townspeople are shown engaged in playful pillow fights, with feathers from the pillows drifting through the air like snowflakes, creating a whimsically chaotic atmosphere.

*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 cotton caused Air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina to increase.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
From Cotton to Carbon: Unveiling the GMO Effect on Air Pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina

The Journal of Biotech Chronicles

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 GMO use in cotton and Air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Make the title seem clever.

Your research team used data from USDA and Environmental Protection Agency to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8616166 and p < 0.01 for 2000 to 2007.

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]]
From Cotton to Carbon: Unveiling the GMO Effect on Air Pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
Amidst the cotton fields of Lumberton, North Carolina, lies a misty enigma: the relationship between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in cotton production and air pollution. This study delves into the cottony labyrinth, aiming to untangle the thread connecting these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Our research team, taking a leaf out of Punnett's square, sought to elucidate whether GMO use wields an unseen influence on the air quality of Lumberton.

Drawing from a bountiful harvest of USDA data on cotton cultivation and the Environmental Protection Agency's air pollution measurements, we employed rigorous statistical analyses. The correlation coefficient of 0.8616166 and a remarkable p-value of less than 0.01 for the period from 2000 to 2007 seeded a clear pattern: the more cotton embraced GMOs, the hazier the air became. As we sifted through the tangled data, the evidence leaves little room for skepticism; GMOs seem to cast a smoggy shadow over the air in Lumberton.

But wait - before you pick up your pitchforks and demand to "un-GMO" everything, there’s room for more dad jokes here. This research is the fabric of our investigation, and the results may not be stitched into the very fabric of the debate just yet. It's not time to spin a yarn of panic, but to weave empathy and understanding for the multifaceted implications of GMO use in agriculture.

This study aims to harness these findings as a thread to sew together a tapestry of sustainable agricultural practices. As the dust of this research settles, may it cultivate a nuanced discussion and sow seeds of progress in shaping the future of cotton production and air quality in Lumberton.


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 GMO use in cotton and Air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
From Cotton to Carbon: Unveiling the GMO Effect on Air Pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
Amidst the cotton fields of Lumberton, North Carolina, lies a misty enigma: the relationship between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in cotton production and air pollution. This study delves into the cottony labyrinth, aiming to untangle the thread connecting these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Our research team, taking a leaf out of Punnett's square, sought to elucidate whether GMO use wields an unseen influence on the air quality of Lumberton.

Drawing from a bountiful harvest of USDA data on cotton cultivation and the Environmental Protection Agency's air pollution measurements, we employed rigorous statistical analyses. The correlation coefficient of 0.8616166 and a remarkable p-value of less than 0.01 for the period from 2000 to 2007 seeded a clear pattern: the more cotton embraced GMOs, the hazier the air became. As we sifted through the tangled data, the evidence leaves little room for skepticism; GMOs seem to cast a smoggy shadow over the air in Lumberton.

But wait - before you pick up your pitchforks and demand to "un-GMO" everything, there’s room for more dad jokes here. This research is the fabric of our investigation, and the results may not be stitched into the very fabric of the debate just yet. It's not time to spin a yarn of panic, but to weave empathy and understanding for the multifaceted implications of GMO use in agriculture.

This study aims to harness these findings as a thread to sew together a tapestry of sustainable agricultural practices. As the dust of this research settles, may it cultivate a nuanced discussion and sow seeds of progress in shaping the future of cotton production and air quality in Lumberton.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Amidst the vast expanse of cotton fields in Lumberton, North Carolina, lies an intriguing puzzle that has befuddled researchers and farmers alike: the potential connection between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in cotton cultivation and the quality of the air in this serene southern town. As we peel back the layers of this enigma, we endeavor to unearth the underlying dynamics at play and discern whether GMOs loom in the air like a cloud of unpredictability.

But seriously, folks, what do you call a cotton field full of rebellious plants? A rumpled crop! The quest to understand the impact of GMO use in cotton production on air pollution leads us down a curious path of inquiry, akin to looking for a needle in a haystack, or perhaps a genetically modified cotton boll in a sea of conventional ones.

Anchoring our investigation in the fertile soil of reliable statistical methods, we take a quantitative approach to disentangle this complex web of relationships. Just as a well-tailored suit enhances one's appearance, our analysis of USDA data on cotton cultivation and the Environmental Protection Agency's air quality measurements seeks to dress up the evidence with undeniable statistical significance.

Now, don't let your skepticism grow taller than a cotton plant, but our findings suggest that the rise of GMO adoption in cotton cultivation may not just be ginning up more lint; it could also be contributing to a hazier atmosphere. It seems that the clouds may owe a little to the cotton fields after all!

As we unravel this yarn of inquiry, it is essential to approach the findings with an open mind and a discerning eye. This research is just one piece of the puzzle, and it's important not to jump to premature conclusions. We must tread carefully and avoid spinning a tangled web of misconception and panic, but rather stitch together a more nuanced understanding of the implications for agricultural practices and environmental quality.

So, what's the conclusion? Stay tuned to discover how the humble cotton plant, genetically modified or not, is woven into the intricate fabric of air quality in Lumberton, and how these findings can knit together a tapestry of sustainable agricultural practices for the future.


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 GMO use in cotton and Air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina. 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]]
From Cotton to Carbon: Unveiling the GMO Effect on Air Pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
Amidst the cotton fields of Lumberton, North Carolina, lies a misty enigma: the relationship between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in cotton production and air pollution. This study delves into the cottony labyrinth, aiming to untangle the thread connecting these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Our research team, taking a leaf out of Punnett's square, sought to elucidate whether GMO use wields an unseen influence on the air quality of Lumberton.

Drawing from a bountiful harvest of USDA data on cotton cultivation and the Environmental Protection Agency's air pollution measurements, we employed rigorous statistical analyses. The correlation coefficient of 0.8616166 and a remarkable p-value of less than 0.01 for the period from 2000 to 2007 seeded a clear pattern: the more cotton embraced GMOs, the hazier the air became. As we sifted through the tangled data, the evidence leaves little room for skepticism; GMOs seem to cast a smoggy shadow over the air in Lumberton.

But wait - before you pick up your pitchforks and demand to "un-GMO" everything, there’s room for more dad jokes here. This research is the fabric of our investigation, and the results may not be stitched into the very fabric of the debate just yet. It's not time to spin a yarn of panic, but to weave empathy and understanding for the multifaceted implications of GMO use in agriculture.

This study aims to harness these findings as a thread to sew together a tapestry of sustainable agricultural practices. As the dust of this research settles, may it cultivate a nuanced discussion and sow seeds of progress in shaping the future of cotton production and air quality in Lumberton.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Amidst the vast expanse of cotton fields in Lumberton, North Carolina, lies an intriguing puzzle that has befuddled researchers and farmers alike: the potential connection between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in cotton cultivation and the quality of the air in this serene southern town. As we peel back the layers of this enigma, we endeavor to unearth the underlying dynamics at play and discern whether GMOs loom in the air like a cloud of unpredictability.
But seriously, folks, what do you call a cotton field full of rebellious plants? A rumpled crop! The quest to understand the impact of GMO use in cotton production on air pollution leads us down a curious path of inquiry, akin to looking for a needle in a haystack, or perhaps a genetically modified cotton boll in a sea of conventional ones.
Anchoring our investigation in the fertile soil of reliable statistical methods, we take a quantitative approach to disentangle this complex web of relationships. Just as a well-tailored suit enhances one's appearance, our analysis of USDA data on cotton cultivation and the Environmental Protection Agency's air quality measurements seeks to dress up the evidence with undeniable statistical significance.
Now, don't let your skepticism grow taller than a cotton plant, but our findings suggest that the rise of GMO adoption in cotton cultivation may not just be ginning up more lint; it could also be contributing to a hazier atmosphere. It seems that the clouds may owe a little to the cotton fields after all!
As we unravel this yarn of inquiry, it is essential to approach the findings with an open mind and a discerning eye. This research is just one piece of the puzzle, and it's important not to jump to premature conclusions. We must tread carefully and avoid spinning a tangled web of misconception and panic, but rather stitch together a more nuanced understanding of the implications for agricultural practices and environmental quality.
So, what's the conclusion? Stay tuned to discover how the humble cotton plant, genetically modified or not, is woven into the intricate fabric of air quality in Lumberton, and how these findings can knit together a tapestry of sustainable agricultural practices for the future.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

Numerous studies have delved into the intricate relationship between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in agriculture and environmental factors. Smith et al., in "The Impact of GMO Adoption in Agriculture," explore the effects of GMOs on various aspects of crop production and sustainability. Meanwhile, Doe and Jones investigate the implications of GMO use on environmental quality in their seminal work, "GMOs and the Environment: A Comprehensive Analysis."

But hey, why did the GMO researcher wear a tuxedo to the field? Because he wanted to conduct a "formal" study! As we venture into the realm of cotton cultivation and air pollution, it's crucial to acknowledge the broader context of agricultural practices and their potential ramifications on the environment.

Turning to non-fiction works, "The Cotton Economy and Environmental Dynamics" by Green and White provides a comprehensive examination of the ecological footprint of cotton production. Additionally, "Air Pollution: A Comprehensive Analysis" by Brown and Black offers valuable insights into the intricacies of air quality dynamics.

In a surprising twist, "The Secret Life of Bees" by Sue Monk Kidd and "Gone with the Wind" by Margaret Mitchell appear to be relevant to our discussion, though in a fictional context. These literary works prompt us to ponder the intertwining of agricultural practices and environmental conditions in the world of fiction.

In the pursuit of a comprehensive literature review, one mustn't overlook unconventional sources of information. As bizarre as it may seem, perusing through the seemingly unrelated world of CVS receipts surprisingly yielded some enlightening data on consumer preferences and purchase patterns. Who knew that a banana and a packet of gum may hold the key to unlocking the mysteries of GMO use in cotton and its impact on air pollution?

As we embark on this quirky quest for knowledge, it's essential to approach the literature with a discerning eye and a lighthearted spirit, for delving into the depths of research should not be devoid of a good chuckle or two. Remember, folks, laughter is the best "peer-reviewed" medicine!


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 GMO use in cotton and Air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and Environmental Protection Agency . You used data from 2000 to 2007

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]]
From Cotton to Carbon: Unveiling the GMO Effect on Air Pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
Amidst the cotton fields of Lumberton, North Carolina, lies a misty enigma: the relationship between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in cotton production and air pollution. This study delves into the cottony labyrinth, aiming to untangle the thread connecting these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Our research team, taking a leaf out of Punnett's square, sought to elucidate whether GMO use wields an unseen influence on the air quality of Lumberton.

Drawing from a bountiful harvest of USDA data on cotton cultivation and the Environmental Protection Agency's air pollution measurements, we employed rigorous statistical analyses. The correlation coefficient of 0.8616166 and a remarkable p-value of less than 0.01 for the period from 2000 to 2007 seeded a clear pattern: the more cotton embraced GMOs, the hazier the air became. As we sifted through the tangled data, the evidence leaves little room for skepticism; GMOs seem to cast a smoggy shadow over the air in Lumberton.

But wait - before you pick up your pitchforks and demand to "un-GMO" everything, there’s room for more dad jokes here. This research is the fabric of our investigation, and the results may not be stitched into the very fabric of the debate just yet. It's not time to spin a yarn of panic, but to weave empathy and understanding for the multifaceted implications of GMO use in agriculture.

This study aims to harness these findings as a thread to sew together a tapestry of sustainable agricultural practices. As the dust of this research settles, may it cultivate a nuanced discussion and sow seeds of progress in shaping the future of cotton production and air quality in Lumberton.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Amidst the vast expanse of cotton fields in Lumberton, North Carolina, lies an intriguing puzzle that has befuddled researchers and farmers alike: the potential connection between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in cotton cultivation and the quality of the air in this serene southern town. As we peel back the layers of this enigma, we endeavor to unearth the underlying dynamics at play and discern whether GMOs loom in the air like a cloud of unpredictability.
But seriously, folks, what do you call a cotton field full of rebellious plants? A rumpled crop! The quest to understand the impact of GMO use in cotton production on air pollution leads us down a curious path of inquiry, akin to looking for a needle in a haystack, or perhaps a genetically modified cotton boll in a sea of conventional ones.
Anchoring our investigation in the fertile soil of reliable statistical methods, we take a quantitative approach to disentangle this complex web of relationships. Just as a well-tailored suit enhances one's appearance, our analysis of USDA data on cotton cultivation and the Environmental Protection Agency's air quality measurements seeks to dress up the evidence with undeniable statistical significance.
Now, don't let your skepticism grow taller than a cotton plant, but our findings suggest that the rise of GMO adoption in cotton cultivation may not just be ginning up more lint; it could also be contributing to a hazier atmosphere. It seems that the clouds may owe a little to the cotton fields after all!
As we unravel this yarn of inquiry, it is essential to approach the findings with an open mind and a discerning eye. This research is just one piece of the puzzle, and it's important not to jump to premature conclusions. We must tread carefully and avoid spinning a tangled web of misconception and panic, but rather stitch together a more nuanced understanding of the implications for agricultural practices and environmental quality.
So, what's the conclusion? Stay tuned to discover how the humble cotton plant, genetically modified or not, is woven into the intricate fabric of air quality in Lumberton, and how these findings can knit together a tapestry of sustainable agricultural practices for the future.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To unravel the mystery of the potential relationship between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in cotton cultivation and air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina, we employed a multifaceted and thorough research methodology – not unlike knitting a well-designed sweater with just a dash of Southern charm and a pinch of statistical savvy.

Our research team harvested an extensive dataset from the fertile fields of the internet and baled up the most reliable information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We gathered data covering the years 2000 to 2007, ensuring a robust foundation for our analysis – no cotton-picking around here!

In our pursuit of data, we unearthed a bounty of intriguing statistical methods, each promising to shed light on the potential interplay between GMO use in cotton and air pollution. We meticulously selected the most appropriate statistical tools, ensuring that our analysis was as precise as separating cotton from its seeds.

With the precision of a seamstress, we meticulously conducted correlation and regression analyses to examine the patterns in the data. We utilized robust statistical software to weave together the connections between GMO adoption in cotton cultivation and air pollution, endeavoring to produce results as seamless as a well-stitched seam.

But here's a cotton-related joke for you: Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field! In all seriousness, we also conducted spatial analysis to examine the geographical distribution of GMO cotton fields and air pollution concentrations. This allowed us to visualize how the winds of change wafted through the Lumberton air.

Furthermore, we constructed a synthetic control group to compare the air quality in Lumberton with a hypothetical scenario where GMO cotton had not been introduced. This rigorous approach allowed us to isolate the potential impact of GMO adoption from other factors that could cloud the results.

Finally, we employed a rigorous peer review process, comparable to meticulously examining every stitch in a hand-woven tapestry, to ensure the integrity and credibility of our methodology and findings.

As we untangle the complexity of GMO use in cotton cultivation and its potential influence on air pollution in Lumberton, our research methodology stands as an unwavering testament to the pursuit of scientific inquiry – much like a resilient cotton fiber weathering the winds of change.

With our methodology firmly in place, we can now unveil the intricately woven fabric of our findings and shed light on the potential implications for sustainable agricultural practices and environmental quality in Lumberton, North Carolina.


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 GMO use in cotton and Air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from USDA and Environmental Protection Agency .

For the time period 2000 to 2007, you found a correlation 0.8616166, r-squared of 0.7423831, 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]]
From Cotton to Carbon: Unveiling the GMO Effect on Air Pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
Amidst the cotton fields of Lumberton, North Carolina, lies a misty enigma: the relationship between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in cotton production and air pollution. This study delves into the cottony labyrinth, aiming to untangle the thread connecting these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Our research team, taking a leaf out of Punnett's square, sought to elucidate whether GMO use wields an unseen influence on the air quality of Lumberton.

Drawing from a bountiful harvest of USDA data on cotton cultivation and the Environmental Protection Agency's air pollution measurements, we employed rigorous statistical analyses. The correlation coefficient of 0.8616166 and a remarkable p-value of less than 0.01 for the period from 2000 to 2007 seeded a clear pattern: the more cotton embraced GMOs, the hazier the air became. As we sifted through the tangled data, the evidence leaves little room for skepticism; GMOs seem to cast a smoggy shadow over the air in Lumberton.

But wait - before you pick up your pitchforks and demand to "un-GMO" everything, there’s room for more dad jokes here. This research is the fabric of our investigation, and the results may not be stitched into the very fabric of the debate just yet. It's not time to spin a yarn of panic, but to weave empathy and understanding for the multifaceted implications of GMO use in agriculture.

This study aims to harness these findings as a thread to sew together a tapestry of sustainable agricultural practices. As the dust of this research settles, may it cultivate a nuanced discussion and sow seeds of progress in shaping the future of cotton production and air quality in Lumberton.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Amidst the vast expanse of cotton fields in Lumberton, North Carolina, lies an intriguing puzzle that has befuddled researchers and farmers alike: the potential connection between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in cotton cultivation and the quality of the air in this serene southern town. As we peel back the layers of this enigma, we endeavor to unearth the underlying dynamics at play and discern whether GMOs loom in the air like a cloud of unpredictability.
But seriously, folks, what do you call a cotton field full of rebellious plants? A rumpled crop! The quest to understand the impact of GMO use in cotton production on air pollution leads us down a curious path of inquiry, akin to looking for a needle in a haystack, or perhaps a genetically modified cotton boll in a sea of conventional ones.
Anchoring our investigation in the fertile soil of reliable statistical methods, we take a quantitative approach to disentangle this complex web of relationships. Just as a well-tailored suit enhances one's appearance, our analysis of USDA data on cotton cultivation and the Environmental Protection Agency's air quality measurements seeks to dress up the evidence with undeniable statistical significance.
Now, don't let your skepticism grow taller than a cotton plant, but our findings suggest that the rise of GMO adoption in cotton cultivation may not just be ginning up more lint; it could also be contributing to a hazier atmosphere. It seems that the clouds may owe a little to the cotton fields after all!
As we unravel this yarn of inquiry, it is essential to approach the findings with an open mind and a discerning eye. This research is just one piece of the puzzle, and it's important not to jump to premature conclusions. We must tread carefully and avoid spinning a tangled web of misconception and panic, but rather stitch together a more nuanced understanding of the implications for agricultural practices and environmental quality.
So, what's the conclusion? Stay tuned to discover how the humble cotton plant, genetically modified or not, is woven into the intricate fabric of air quality in Lumberton, and how these findings can knit together a tapestry of sustainable agricultural practices for the future.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The statistical analysis revealed a robust correlation of 0.8616166 between the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation and the level of air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina from 2000 to 2007. This correlation was accompanied by a striking r-squared value of 0.7423831 and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a highly significant relationship between these variables.

Fig. 1 illustrates the strong positive correlation between GMO use in cotton and air pollution in Lumberton during the specified time period. The scatterplot underscores the cloud of evidence supporting our findings.

Now, brace yourselves for a dad joke interlude: What do you get when you cross a cotton plant with a Christmas tree? A stocking stuffer!

The evidence from this study suggests that, contrary to common perception, GMO use in cotton cultivation may indeed contribute to the haziness in the air around Lumberton. This finding unveils a previously overlooked aspect of the environmental impact of GMO adoption in agriculture, adding nuance to the ongoing discourse.

But wait, before you start burning your cotton T-shirts, it's essential to approach these findings with caution. As we peel back the layers of this cottony mystery, more research is needed to unravel the complex interplay of factors contributing to air pollution and to discern the precise mechanisms through which GMO use influences air quality.

In conclusion, this research casts a new light on the connection between GMO use in cotton and the air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina, weaving a thread of inquiry that beckons for further exploration and consideration in shaping sustainable agricultural and environmental policies.

And remember, there’s always room for more cotton jokes; they truly do have a high thread count!


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 GMO use in cotton and Air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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]]
From Cotton to Carbon: Unveiling the GMO Effect on Air Pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
Amidst the cotton fields of Lumberton, North Carolina, lies a misty enigma: the relationship between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in cotton production and air pollution. This study delves into the cottony labyrinth, aiming to untangle the thread connecting these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Our research team, taking a leaf out of Punnett's square, sought to elucidate whether GMO use wields an unseen influence on the air quality of Lumberton.

Drawing from a bountiful harvest of USDA data on cotton cultivation and the Environmental Protection Agency's air pollution measurements, we employed rigorous statistical analyses. The correlation coefficient of 0.8616166 and a remarkable p-value of less than 0.01 for the period from 2000 to 2007 seeded a clear pattern: the more cotton embraced GMOs, the hazier the air became. As we sifted through the tangled data, the evidence leaves little room for skepticism; GMOs seem to cast a smoggy shadow over the air in Lumberton.

But wait - before you pick up your pitchforks and demand to "un-GMO" everything, there’s room for more dad jokes here. This research is the fabric of our investigation, and the results may not be stitched into the very fabric of the debate just yet. It's not time to spin a yarn of panic, but to weave empathy and understanding for the multifaceted implications of GMO use in agriculture.

This study aims to harness these findings as a thread to sew together a tapestry of sustainable agricultural practices. As the dust of this research settles, may it cultivate a nuanced discussion and sow seeds of progress in shaping the future of cotton production and air quality in Lumberton.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
Numerous studies have delved into the intricate relationship between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in agriculture and environmental factors. Smith et al., in "The Impact of GMO Adoption in Agriculture," explore the effects of GMOs on various aspects of crop production and sustainability. Meanwhile, Doe and Jones investigate the implications of GMO use on environmental quality in their seminal work, "GMOs and the Environment: A Comprehensive Analysis."
But hey, why did the GMO researcher wear a tuxedo to the field? Because he wanted to conduct a "formal" study! As we venture into the realm of cotton cultivation and air pollution, it's crucial to acknowledge the broader context of agricultural practices and their potential ramifications on the environment.
Turning to non-fiction works, "The Cotton Economy and Environmental Dynamics" by Green and White provides a comprehensive examination of the ecological footprint of cotton production. Additionally, "Air Pollution: A Comprehensive Analysis" by Brown and Black offers valuable insights into the intricacies of air quality dynamics.
In a surprising twist, "The Secret Life of Bees" by Sue Monk Kidd and "Gone with the Wind" by Margaret Mitchell appear to be relevant to our discussion, though in a fictional context. These literary works prompt us to ponder the intertwining of agricultural practices and environmental conditions in the world of fiction.
In the pursuit of a comprehensive literature review, one mustn't overlook unconventional sources of information. As bizarre as it may seem, perusing through the seemingly unrelated world of CVS receipts surprisingly yielded some enlightening data on consumer preferences and purchase patterns. Who knew that a banana and a packet of gum may hold the key to unlocking the mysteries of GMO use in cotton and its impact on air pollution?
As we embark on this quirky quest for knowledge, it's essential to approach the literature with a discerning eye and a lighthearted spirit, for delving into the depths of research should not be devoid of a good chuckle or two. Remember, folks, laughter is the best "peer-reviewed" medicine!

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis revealed a robust correlation of 0.8616166 between the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation and the level of air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina from 2000 to 2007. This correlation was accompanied by a striking r-squared value of 0.7423831 and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a highly significant relationship between these variables.
Fig. 1 illustrates the strong positive correlation between GMO use in cotton and air pollution in Lumberton during the specified time period. The scatterplot underscores the cloud of evidence supporting our findings.
Now, brace yourselves for a dad joke interlude: What do you get when you cross a cotton plant with a Christmas tree? A stocking stuffer!
The evidence from this study suggests that, contrary to common perception, GMO use in cotton cultivation may indeed contribute to the haziness in the air around Lumberton. This finding unveils a previously overlooked aspect of the environmental impact of GMO adoption in agriculture, adding nuance to the ongoing discourse.
But wait, before you start burning your cotton T-shirts, it's essential to approach these findings with caution. As we peel back the layers of this cottony mystery, more research is needed to unravel the complex interplay of factors contributing to air pollution and to discern the precise mechanisms through which GMO use influences air quality.
In conclusion, this research casts a new light on the connection between GMO use in cotton and the air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina, weaving a thread of inquiry that beckons for further exploration and consideration in shaping sustainable agricultural and environmental policies.
And remember, there’s always room for more cotton jokes; they truly do have a high thread count!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

In delving into the cotton lanes of Lumberton, North Carolina, our study set out to examine the often-overlooked relationship between GMO use in cotton production and air pollution. Our findings not only tie into the existing literature but also stand as a testament to the impactful interplay between agricultural practices and environmental quality.

Our study's results align with prior research by Smith et al. and Doe and Jones, echoing the significance of GMOs on environmental dynamics. The correlation coefficient of 0.8616166 and a p-value of less than 0.01 between GMO adoption in cotton cultivation and air pollution levels provide solid backing to the claim that GMOs may indeed play a role in the haziness of Lumberton's air.

As much as it pains me to write this, it seems that the jokes in the literature review were more than just a way to cultivate a lighthearted spirit for our scholarly pursuits. They subtly alluded to the multifaceted impact of GMO use in agriculture. It appears that the GMO researcher who wore a tuxedo to the field wasn't just after a "formal" study; perhaps he was onto something after all.

Supported by our data, the atmospheric implications of GMO use in cotton production must be untangled further to comprehend the full extent of their influence on air quality. As the dust of this research settles, it's clear that the integration of genetic modification in cotton cultivation may weave a hazy chapter in the story of Lumberton's air pollution. However, amidst the cottony labyrinth, there still lurks a mystery to unravel.

Our investigation lays a textured groundwork for future studies, stitching together the need for a comprehensive understanding of the environmental impact of GMO adoption in agriculture. As we continue to unspin this cottony tale, there are undoubtedly more layers to peel back, more threads to follow, and, dare I say, more dad jokes to crack.


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 GMO use in cotton and Air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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]]
From Cotton to Carbon: Unveiling the GMO Effect on Air Pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina

[[ABSTRACT]]
Amidst the cotton fields of Lumberton, North Carolina, lies a misty enigma: the relationship between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in cotton production and air pollution. This study delves into the cottony labyrinth, aiming to untangle the thread connecting these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Our research team, taking a leaf out of Punnett's square, sought to elucidate whether GMO use wields an unseen influence on the air quality of Lumberton.

Drawing from a bountiful harvest of USDA data on cotton cultivation and the Environmental Protection Agency's air pollution measurements, we employed rigorous statistical analyses. The correlation coefficient of 0.8616166 and a remarkable p-value of less than 0.01 for the period from 2000 to 2007 seeded a clear pattern: the more cotton embraced GMOs, the hazier the air became. As we sifted through the tangled data, the evidence leaves little room for skepticism; GMOs seem to cast a smoggy shadow over the air in Lumberton.

But wait - before you pick up your pitchforks and demand to "un-GMO" everything, there’s room for more dad jokes here. This research is the fabric of our investigation, and the results may not be stitched into the very fabric of the debate just yet. It's not time to spin a yarn of panic, but to weave empathy and understanding for the multifaceted implications of GMO use in agriculture.

This study aims to harness these findings as a thread to sew together a tapestry of sustainable agricultural practices. As the dust of this research settles, may it cultivate a nuanced discussion and sow seeds of progress in shaping the future of cotton production and air quality in Lumberton.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Amidst the vast expanse of cotton fields in Lumberton, North Carolina, lies an intriguing puzzle that has befuddled researchers and farmers alike: the potential connection between the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in cotton cultivation and the quality of the air in this serene southern town. As we peel back the layers of this enigma, we endeavor to unearth the underlying dynamics at play and discern whether GMOs loom in the air like a cloud of unpredictability.
But seriously, folks, what do you call a cotton field full of rebellious plants? A rumpled crop! The quest to understand the impact of GMO use in cotton production on air pollution leads us down a curious path of inquiry, akin to looking for a needle in a haystack, or perhaps a genetically modified cotton boll in a sea of conventional ones.
Anchoring our investigation in the fertile soil of reliable statistical methods, we take a quantitative approach to disentangle this complex web of relationships. Just as a well-tailored suit enhances one's appearance, our analysis of USDA data on cotton cultivation and the Environmental Protection Agency's air quality measurements seeks to dress up the evidence with undeniable statistical significance.
Now, don't let your skepticism grow taller than a cotton plant, but our findings suggest that the rise of GMO adoption in cotton cultivation may not just be ginning up more lint; it could also be contributing to a hazier atmosphere. It seems that the clouds may owe a little to the cotton fields after all!
As we unravel this yarn of inquiry, it is essential to approach the findings with an open mind and a discerning eye. This research is just one piece of the puzzle, and it's important not to jump to premature conclusions. We must tread carefully and avoid spinning a tangled web of misconception and panic, but rather stitch together a more nuanced understanding of the implications for agricultural practices and environmental quality.
So, what's the conclusion? Stay tuned to discover how the humble cotton plant, genetically modified or not, is woven into the intricate fabric of air quality in Lumberton, and how these findings can knit together a tapestry of sustainable agricultural practices for the future.

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis revealed a robust correlation of 0.8616166 between the adoption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in cotton cultivation and the level of air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina from 2000 to 2007. This correlation was accompanied by a striking r-squared value of 0.7423831 and a p-value of less than 0.01, indicating a highly significant relationship between these variables.
Fig. 1 illustrates the strong positive correlation between GMO use in cotton and air pollution in Lumberton during the specified time period. The scatterplot underscores the cloud of evidence supporting our findings.
Now, brace yourselves for a dad joke interlude: What do you get when you cross a cotton plant with a Christmas tree? A stocking stuffer!
The evidence from this study suggests that, contrary to common perception, GMO use in cotton cultivation may indeed contribute to the haziness in the air around Lumberton. This finding unveils a previously overlooked aspect of the environmental impact of GMO adoption in agriculture, adding nuance to the ongoing discourse.
But wait, before you start burning your cotton T-shirts, it's essential to approach these findings with caution. As we peel back the layers of this cottony mystery, more research is needed to unravel the complex interplay of factors contributing to air pollution and to discern the precise mechanisms through which GMO use influences air quality.
In conclusion, this research casts a new light on the connection between GMO use in cotton and the air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina, weaving a thread of inquiry that beckons for further exploration and consideration in shaping sustainable agricultural and environmental policies.
And remember, there’s always room for more cotton jokes; they truly do have a high thread count!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has woven a compelling narrative that threads the connection between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in cotton cultivation and air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina. The striking correlation coefficient of 0.8616166 and a p-value of less than 0.01 leave little room for skepticism. The evidence unraveled in this study highlights the significant influence of GMOs on the haziness of the air in Lumberton, presenting a fabric of insight into the environmental ramifications of GMO adoption in agriculture.

As we finish unraveling this yarn of inquiry, it's essential to emphasize the need for further research to untangle the intricate web of factors contributing to air pollution. Yet, one thing is clear: the GMO effect on air quality is a pressing matter that should not be brushed under the rug. It's time to sew the seeds of sustainable practices that prioritize air quality alongside agricultural productivity.

But, before we thread hastily into panic, it's crucial to approach these findings with measured consideration. As we harvest the fruits of this study, the call for more research is unmistakable; the tapestry of knowledge on the interplay between GMO use in cotton and air pollution requires more threads of investigation.

And to wrap up with a touch of levity: Why did the genetically modified cotton plant feel unappreciated? Because it didn't get enough "jeans"!

In closing, it's evident that a significant correlation exists between GMO use in cotton production and air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina. It's time to cultivate a deeper understanding of this relationship and ensure that our future endeavors in agriculture are sown with insight and wisdom.

And as for further research, we assert with a sense of finality: No more research is needed in this area!


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 From Cotton to Carbon: Unveiling the GMO Effect on Air Pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Biotech Chronicles


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 From Cotton to Carbon: Unveiling the GMO Effect on Air Pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Sustainable Agriculture and Environmental Research (ISAER)


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 From Cotton to Carbon: Unveiling the GMO Effect on Air Pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina with an abstract of Amidst the cotton fields of Lumberton, North Carolina, lies a misty enigma: the relationship between genetically modified organism (GMO) use in cotton production and air pollution. This study delves into the cottony labyrinth, aiming to untangle the thread connecting these seemingly unrelated phenomena. Our research team, taking a leaf out of Punnett's square, sought to elucidate whether GMO use wields an unseen influence on the air quality of Lumberton.
Drawing from a bountiful harvest of USDA data on cotton cultivation and the Environmental Protection Agency's air pollution measurements, we employed rigorous statistical analyses. The correlation coefficient of 0.8616166 and a remarkable p-value of less than 0.01 for the period from 2000 to 2007 seeded a clear pattern: the more cotton embraced GMOs, the hazier the air became. As we sifted through the tangled data, the evidence leaves little room for skepticism; GMOs seem to cast a smoggy shadow over the air in Lumberton.
But wait - before you pick up your pitchforks and demand to "un-GMO" everything, there’s room for more dad jokes here. This research is the fabric of our investigation, and the results may not be stitched into the very fabric of the debate just yet. It's not time to spin a yarn of panic, but to weave empathy and understanding for the multifaceted implications of GMO use in agriculture.
This study aims to harness these findings as a thread to sew together a tapestry of sustainable agricultural practices. As the dust of this research settles, may it cultivate a nuanced discussion and sow seeds of progress in shaping the future of cotton production and air quality in Lumberton.

ChatGPT:

GMO, genetically modified organism, cotton production, air pollution, Lumberton, North Carolina, USDA data, Environmental Protection Agency, statistical analysis, correlation coefficient, cotton cultivation, agricultural practices, sustainable agriculture

*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 cotton
Detailed data title: Percent of cotton planted in Other States that is genetically modified to be insect-resistant (Bt), but not herbicide-tolerant (HT)
Source: USDA
See what else correlates with GMO use in cotton

Air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina
Detailed data title: Percentage of days with air quality at 'unhealthy for sensitive groups' or worse in Lumberton, NC
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
See what else correlates with Air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina

Correlation r = 0.8616166 (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 = 0.7423831 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 74.2% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., GMO use in cotton) over the 8 years from 2000 through 2007.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.006. 0.0059565251670358090000000000
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 0.86 in 0.6% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 168 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 7 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 7 because we have two variables measured over a period of 8 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.

[ 0.4, 0.97 ] 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.
20002001200220032004200520062007
GMO use in cotton (GMO cotton %)1718191822182127
Air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina (Bad air quality days)000.0083333300.00833333000.0168067




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. Very low n: There are not many data points included in this analysis. Even if the p-value is high, we should be suspicious of using so few datapoints in a correlation.
  5. Y-axis doesn't start at zero: I truncated the Y-axes of the graph above. I also used a line graph, which makes the visual connection stand out more than it deserves. Nothing against line graphs. They are great at telling a story when you have linear data! But visually it is deceptive because the only data is at the points on the graph, not the lines on the graph. In between each point, the data could have been doing anything. Like going for a random walk by itself!
    Mathematically what I showed is true, but it is intentionally misleading. Below is the same chart but with both Y-axes starting at zero.




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([17,18,19,18,22,18,21,27,])
array_2 = np.array([0,0,0.00833333,0,0.00833333,0,0,0.0168067,])
array_1_name = "GMO use in cotton"
array_2_name = "Air pollution in Lumberton, North Carolina"

# 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: 3674 · Black Variable ID: 777 · Red Variable ID: 21621
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0