about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #4,872 · View random

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina and the second variable is Votes for Democratic Senators in North Carolina.  The chart goes from 1980 to 2002, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the air became cleaner, it carried away the Democratic voter base on an unexpected and gentle breeze to an undisclosed location. They just couldn't resist the temptation to go fly a kite instead of voting.

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: An image that looks like a scene from 'Star Wars' where in the coastal city of Wilmington, North Carolina, a group of Democratic voters are flying kites adorned with various political symbols and colors, while an X-wing fighter gracefully maneuvers through the clear blue skies. 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: Air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina and Democrat votes for Senators in 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: An image that looks like it is a scene from 'Star Wars' Hyper-realistic Whimsical illustration Futuristic Voxel art
ChatGPT: An image that looks like it is a scene from 'Star Wars'

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 Air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina and Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina, in the following situation: As the air became cleaner, it carried away the Democratic voter base on an unexpected and gentle breeze to an undisclosed location. They just couldn't resist the temptation to go fly a kite instead of voting.. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In the coastal city of Wilmington, North Carolina, a gentle breeze carries away the air pollution, revealing clear blue skies. As the air clears, a group of Democratic voters are seen flying colorful kites, their votes seemingly carried away by the tempting breeze.

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: [ An image that looks like it is a scene from 'Star Wars' ] and depicting this scene: In the coastal city of Wilmington, North Carolina, a gentle breeze carries away the air pollution, revealing clear blue skies. As the air clears, a group of Democratic voters are seen flying colorful kites, their votes seemingly carried away by the tempting breeze. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: An image that looks like a scene from 'Star Wars' where in the coastal city of Wilmington, North Carolina, a group of Democratic voters are flying kites adorned with various political symbols and colors, while an X-wing fighter gracefully maneuvers through the clear blue skies.

*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 a decrease in Air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina caused Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina to decrease.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Cloudy With a Chance of Democrats: The Political Impact of Air Pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina

The Journal of Environmental Politics and Atmospheric Science

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 goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina and Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

Include a pun in the title.

Your research team used data from Environmental Protection Agency and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.9698127 and p < 0.01 for 1980 to 2002.

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]]
"Cloudy With a Chance of Democrats: The Political Impact of Air Pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we aimed to clear the air surrounding the relationship between air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina and Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina. Our research team donned our metaphorical gas masks and delved into the data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse. Much to our surprise, we discovered a significant correlation coefficient of 0.9698127 and a p-value less than 0.01 from 1980 to 2002. This confirmed our hypothesis that there is indeed a strong connection between the hazy air in Wilmington and the blue votes for Senators in the state. Our findings shed light on the potential influence of pollution on political preferences, showing that when it comes to dirty air and voting patterns, the correlation is as clear as smog-filled skies. However, further research is needed to determine the causation and underlying mechanisms behind this peculiar link. As the saying goes, where there's smog, there may just be votes for the Democratic dog.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina and Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. Sneak in some jokes and clever puns about science, research, statistics, and the variables.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Cloudy With a Chance of Democrats: The Political Impact of Air Pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we aimed to clear the air surrounding the relationship between air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina and Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina. Our research team donned our metaphorical gas masks and delved into the data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse. Much to our surprise, we discovered a significant correlation coefficient of 0.9698127 and a p-value less than 0.01 from 1980 to 2002. This confirmed our hypothesis that there is indeed a strong connection between the hazy air in Wilmington and the blue votes for Senators in the state. Our findings shed light on the potential influence of pollution on political preferences, showing that when it comes to dirty air and voting patterns, the correlation is as clear as smog-filled skies. However, further research is needed to determine the causation and underlying mechanisms behind this peculiar link. As the saying goes, where there's smog, there may just be votes for the Democratic dog.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

As the saying goes, "politics is in the air," and in the case of Wilmington, North Carolina, it may very well be true. Our study aims to unravel the hazy mystery surrounding the relationship between air pollution levels and Democrat votes for Senators in the state. While some researchers prefer to keep their heads in the clouds, we decided to take a deep breath and dive into the data to see if there's more than just hot air to this connection.

With our lab coats firmly buttoned and our statistical goggles securely fastened, we combed through environmental data like enthusiastic detectives, hoping to sniff out any clues that might clear the fog surrounding the curious correlation between pollution and politics. Armed with our trusty laptops and an ample supply of caffeine, we embarked on a journey to unearth the political impact of the particles hanging heavily in the Wilmington air.

Our research employed rigorous statistical analysis, steering clear of any statistical hocus-pocus, to examine the association between air quality and political leanings. The Environmental Protection Agency provided us with a treasure trove of air pollution data, while the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, served as our compass through the maze of political voting records.

The initial results left us breathless—figuratively, of course—when we uncovered a correlation coefficient so undeniably strong, we had to pinch ourselves to make sure we hadn't inhaled some statistical fairy dust. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9698127 and a p-value that would make even the most skeptical researcher nod in agreement (less than 0.01 from 1980 to 2002), the evidence was as solid as a perfectly controlled scientific experiment.

As we dusted off our charts and graphs, one thing became transparently clear: the link between the smog in Wilmington and the sway towards the blue in the ballot box was no mere statistical anomaly. It was as if the pollution particles were whispering "Vote Democrat" in the breeze. Such a crisp correlation raised important questions about the potential influence of air quality on political preferences, suggesting that the state's senators may be "air heads" in more ways than one—pun very much intended.

Now, before we start crafting "Clean Air Party" campaign slogans, it's crucial to note that our findings, while eyebrow-raising, don't automatically imply causation. While we're tempted to exclaim, "Eureka! The smog is driving the vote!", scientific integrity demands that we pump the brakes and acknowledge the possibility of lurking confounding variables playing a role in this unexpected marriage of air pollution and politics. After all, as any seasoned researcher knows, correlation does not necessarily imply causation, just as finding a penny on the sidewalk doesn't mean you caused a sudden surge in coin production.

In the words of the wise, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and that's precisely what we're on the lookout for. So, in the spirit of scientific humility, we acknowledge that further research is needed to air out the causation and underlying mechanisms behind this puzzling connection. Perhaps it's time for a new adage: "Where there's smog, there may just be votes for the Democratic dog, but let's not jump to conclusions until we've given causation a thorough scrubbing."

As we roll up our sleeves and prepare to scrutinize the data with the precision of a zealous lint-removing roller, let us embark on this scientific journey with both curiosity and caution. The air may be thick with anticipation, but one thing's certain: in the world of research, every cloud of data has a silver lining of insight—no matter how polluted it may seem. So, buckle up and breathe in the thrill of discovery, for the connection between pollution and politics is anything but a breeze.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina and Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then name some movies that you watched that are tangentially related to the topic.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Cloudy With a Chance of Democrats: The Political Impact of Air Pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we aimed to clear the air surrounding the relationship between air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina and Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina. Our research team donned our metaphorical gas masks and delved into the data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse. Much to our surprise, we discovered a significant correlation coefficient of 0.9698127 and a p-value less than 0.01 from 1980 to 2002. This confirmed our hypothesis that there is indeed a strong connection between the hazy air in Wilmington and the blue votes for Senators in the state. Our findings shed light on the potential influence of pollution on political preferences, showing that when it comes to dirty air and voting patterns, the correlation is as clear as smog-filled skies. However, further research is needed to determine the causation and underlying mechanisms behind this peculiar link. As the saying goes, where there's smog, there may just be votes for the Democratic dog.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
As the saying goes, "politics is in the air," and in the case of Wilmington, North Carolina, it may very well be true. Our study aims to unravel the hazy mystery surrounding the relationship between air pollution levels and Democrat votes for Senators in the state. While some researchers prefer to keep their heads in the clouds, we decided to take a deep breath and dive into the data to see if there's more than just hot air to this connection.
With our lab coats firmly buttoned and our statistical goggles securely fastened, we combed through environmental data like enthusiastic detectives, hoping to sniff out any clues that might clear the fog surrounding the curious correlation between pollution and politics. Armed with our trusty laptops and an ample supply of caffeine, we embarked on a journey to unearth the political impact of the particles hanging heavily in the Wilmington air.
Our research employed rigorous statistical analysis, steering clear of any statistical hocus-pocus, to examine the association between air quality and political leanings. The Environmental Protection Agency provided us with a treasure trove of air pollution data, while the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, served as our compass through the maze of political voting records.
The initial results left us breathless—figuratively, of course—when we uncovered a correlation coefficient so undeniably strong, we had to pinch ourselves to make sure we hadn't inhaled some statistical fairy dust. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9698127 and a p-value that would make even the most skeptical researcher nod in agreement (less than 0.01 from 1980 to 2002), the evidence was as solid as a perfectly controlled scientific experiment.
As we dusted off our charts and graphs, one thing became transparently clear: the link between the smog in Wilmington and the sway towards the blue in the ballot box was no mere statistical anomaly. It was as if the pollution particles were whispering "Vote Democrat" in the breeze. Such a crisp correlation raised important questions about the potential influence of air quality on political preferences, suggesting that the state's senators may be "air heads" in more ways than one—pun very much intended.
Now, before we start crafting "Clean Air Party" campaign slogans, it's crucial to note that our findings, while eyebrow-raising, don't automatically imply causation. While we're tempted to exclaim, "Eureka! The smog is driving the vote!", scientific integrity demands that we pump the brakes and acknowledge the possibility of lurking confounding variables playing a role in this unexpected marriage of air pollution and politics. After all, as any seasoned researcher knows, correlation does not necessarily imply causation, just as finding a penny on the sidewalk doesn't mean you caused a sudden surge in coin production.
In the words of the wise, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and that's precisely what we're on the lookout for. So, in the spirit of scientific humility, we acknowledge that further research is needed to air out the causation and underlying mechanisms behind this puzzling connection. Perhaps it's time for a new adage: "Where there's smog, there may just be votes for the Democratic dog, but let's not jump to conclusions until we've given causation a thorough scrubbing."
As we roll up our sleeves and prepare to scrutinize the data with the precision of a zealous lint-removing roller, let us embark on this scientific journey with both curiosity and caution. The air may be thick with anticipation, but one thing's certain: in the world of research, every cloud of data has a silver lining of insight—no matter how polluted it may seem. So, buckle up and breathe in the thrill of discovery, for the connection between pollution and politics is anything but a breeze.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The pivotal interplay between air quality and political tendencies has been a subject of growing interest in recent years. Smith (2015) in "Air Pollution and Political Affiliation: A State-Level Analysis" elucidates the correlation between particulate matter concentration and voting patterns across different states. Doe (2018) similarly explores the impact of air pollution on political ideology in "The Politics of Haze: How Smog Shapes Political Leanings." These esteemed researchers lay the groundwork for understanding the potential influence of air pollution on political preferences, painting a picture of a world where the suffocating grip of pollution may extend beyond the physical realm.

Now, in a departure from the mundanity of scholarly works, let's inject some levity into this review. Imagine a world where the citizens of Wilmington don their oxygen masks not just for the sake of breathing, but also to show their political allegiance—red masks for Republicans, blue masks for Democrats, and perhaps a green, mask for the environmentally conscious independent voters. It would be a political masquerade ball of unprecedented proportions, wouldn't it?

Shifting gears to the annals of non-fiction literature, "The Air We Breathe: A History of Air Pollution" by Jones (2019) provides valuable insights into the historical trajectory of air pollution and its societal impacts. Meanwhile, "Environmental Politics and Policy" by Smith and Johnson (2017) offers a comprehensive examination of how environmental factors intersect with political decision-making, hinting at the intricate dance between the haze hanging over Wilmington and the democratic dance at the polls.

Turning to the realm of fiction, books like "Smoke and Mirrors" by Jane Austen (1811) and "Pollution Pandemonium" by Stephen King (2004) tiptoe into the territory of air pollution's unseen tendrils creeping into the collective psyche, influencing thoughts, emotions, and perhaps, voting behavior. These works serve as a compelling reminder that while the connections we uncover may seem far-fetched, truth is often stranger than fiction—especially in the realm of pollutive politics.

In a bid to add a dash of cinematic flair to the review, consider the evocative imagery of pollution-laden skies in movies such as "The Fog" and "Airpocalypse Now." These films, while not directly related to the specific context of Wilmington's air quality and electoral choices, underscore the eerie, almost surreal influence of polluted atmospheres on human behavior. Just as the characters in these films grapple with the ominous presence of haze, so too do the politicians and voters of Wilmington navigate the murky political landscape shaped by the city's polluted air.

With the creative liberties of fiction and the gripping allure of cinema, it's evident that the link between air pollution and political tendencies is a fertile ground for exploration and imagination. As we forge ahead in scrutinizing the established literature, let's not forget to infuse a sense of wonder and humor into our academic pursuits. After all, research is often a delicate balance of pragmatism and playfulness, much like navigating through a cloud of uncertainty with a whimsical umbrella to shield us from the academic drizzle.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina and Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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 Environmental Protection Agency and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse . You used data from 1980 to 2002

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]]
"Cloudy With a Chance of Democrats: The Political Impact of Air Pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we aimed to clear the air surrounding the relationship between air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina and Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina. Our research team donned our metaphorical gas masks and delved into the data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse. Much to our surprise, we discovered a significant correlation coefficient of 0.9698127 and a p-value less than 0.01 from 1980 to 2002. This confirmed our hypothesis that there is indeed a strong connection between the hazy air in Wilmington and the blue votes for Senators in the state. Our findings shed light on the potential influence of pollution on political preferences, showing that when it comes to dirty air and voting patterns, the correlation is as clear as smog-filled skies. However, further research is needed to determine the causation and underlying mechanisms behind this peculiar link. As the saying goes, where there's smog, there may just be votes for the Democratic dog.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
As the saying goes, "politics is in the air," and in the case of Wilmington, North Carolina, it may very well be true. Our study aims to unravel the hazy mystery surrounding the relationship between air pollution levels and Democrat votes for Senators in the state. While some researchers prefer to keep their heads in the clouds, we decided to take a deep breath and dive into the data to see if there's more than just hot air to this connection.
With our lab coats firmly buttoned and our statistical goggles securely fastened, we combed through environmental data like enthusiastic detectives, hoping to sniff out any clues that might clear the fog surrounding the curious correlation between pollution and politics. Armed with our trusty laptops and an ample supply of caffeine, we embarked on a journey to unearth the political impact of the particles hanging heavily in the Wilmington air.
Our research employed rigorous statistical analysis, steering clear of any statistical hocus-pocus, to examine the association between air quality and political leanings. The Environmental Protection Agency provided us with a treasure trove of air pollution data, while the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, served as our compass through the maze of political voting records.
The initial results left us breathless—figuratively, of course—when we uncovered a correlation coefficient so undeniably strong, we had to pinch ourselves to make sure we hadn't inhaled some statistical fairy dust. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9698127 and a p-value that would make even the most skeptical researcher nod in agreement (less than 0.01 from 1980 to 2002), the evidence was as solid as a perfectly controlled scientific experiment.
As we dusted off our charts and graphs, one thing became transparently clear: the link between the smog in Wilmington and the sway towards the blue in the ballot box was no mere statistical anomaly. It was as if the pollution particles were whispering "Vote Democrat" in the breeze. Such a crisp correlation raised important questions about the potential influence of air quality on political preferences, suggesting that the state's senators may be "air heads" in more ways than one—pun very much intended.
Now, before we start crafting "Clean Air Party" campaign slogans, it's crucial to note that our findings, while eyebrow-raising, don't automatically imply causation. While we're tempted to exclaim, "Eureka! The smog is driving the vote!", scientific integrity demands that we pump the brakes and acknowledge the possibility of lurking confounding variables playing a role in this unexpected marriage of air pollution and politics. After all, as any seasoned researcher knows, correlation does not necessarily imply causation, just as finding a penny on the sidewalk doesn't mean you caused a sudden surge in coin production.
In the words of the wise, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and that's precisely what we're on the lookout for. So, in the spirit of scientific humility, we acknowledge that further research is needed to air out the causation and underlying mechanisms behind this puzzling connection. Perhaps it's time for a new adage: "Where there's smog, there may just be votes for the Democratic dog, but let's not jump to conclusions until we've given causation a thorough scrubbing."
As we roll up our sleeves and prepare to scrutinize the data with the precision of a zealous lint-removing roller, let us embark on this scientific journey with both curiosity and caution. The air may be thick with anticipation, but one thing's certain: in the world of research, every cloud of data has a silver lining of insight—no matter how polluted it may seem. So, buckle up and breathe in the thrill of discovery, for the connection between pollution and politics is anything but a breeze.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

**[[METHODOLOGY]]**

Ah, the nitty-gritty details of how we took the leap from hazy ponderings to concrete conclusions. Our methodology was as solid as a... well, let's just say it was pretty darn solid. First things first, we had to whip out our metaphorical magnifying glasses and map out our strategy like explorers in search of a new land—well, in this case, a new statistical frontier.

*Data Collection:*
We gobbled up data like it was a buffet of statistical delights, channeling our inner data-hungry monsters in the pursuit of truth. Our primary sources were the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse. We trawled through EPA's air pollution data like treasure hunters sifting through sandy shores, and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse served as our compass through the labyrinth of political voting records. There we were, spelunking through the digital caves of data, extracting nuggets of information like seasoned prospectors seeking gold.

*Air Quality Measures:*
We zeroed in on key air quality indicators, including but not limited to particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and carbon monoxide (CO). These measures allowed us to gauge the atmospheric shenanigans hijacking Wilmington's air space. It was like carrying out atmospheric espionage, gaining insight into the covert activities of these invisible villains lurking in the breeze.

*Political Voting Records:*
On the other end of the spectrum, we sifted through decades of political voting records with the agility of Olympic medalists in the hurdles. The goal? To track the ebb and flow of Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina from 1980 to 2002, extracting every tidbit of electoral information with surgical precision.

*Statistical Analysis:*
We brought out the heavy artillery of statistical analysis, employing the likes of correlation coefficients and p-values to dissect the connection between air pollution and Democrat votes. It was like orchestrating a symphony of numbers, with each statistical test performing its own unique melody in the grand data opera.

*Time Period Selection:*
Ah, yes, the classic "when" of research. We opted to focus on the timeline from 1980 to 2002, a window of time when the clinking of air pollutants and the rustling of political ballots may have danced in harmonious—or perhaps discordant—melody.

*Confounding Variables:*
We kept our radar finely tuned for lurking confounding variables that might have been waving their metaphorical hands in a bid to hijack our findings. After all, in the world of research, confounding variables are the mischievous imps that love to throw a wrench into our beautifully crafted statistical machinery.

Through this careful concoction of data collection, statistical analysis, and confounding variable vigilance, we aimed to treat the research process not as a sprint, but as a leisurely stroll with data, pausing to smell the roses of statistical significance and caution along the way.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina and Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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 Environmental Protection Agency and MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse .

For the time period 1980 to 2002, you found a correlation 0.9698127, r-squared of 0.9405366, 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]]
"Cloudy With a Chance of Democrats: The Political Impact of Air Pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we aimed to clear the air surrounding the relationship between air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina and Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina. Our research team donned our metaphorical gas masks and delved into the data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse. Much to our surprise, we discovered a significant correlation coefficient of 0.9698127 and a p-value less than 0.01 from 1980 to 2002. This confirmed our hypothesis that there is indeed a strong connection between the hazy air in Wilmington and the blue votes for Senators in the state. Our findings shed light on the potential influence of pollution on political preferences, showing that when it comes to dirty air and voting patterns, the correlation is as clear as smog-filled skies. However, further research is needed to determine the causation and underlying mechanisms behind this peculiar link. As the saying goes, where there's smog, there may just be votes for the Democratic dog.

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
As the saying goes, "politics is in the air," and in the case of Wilmington, North Carolina, it may very well be true. Our study aims to unravel the hazy mystery surrounding the relationship between air pollution levels and Democrat votes for Senators in the state. While some researchers prefer to keep their heads in the clouds, we decided to take a deep breath and dive into the data to see if there's more than just hot air to this connection.
With our lab coats firmly buttoned and our statistical goggles securely fastened, we combed through environmental data like enthusiastic detectives, hoping to sniff out any clues that might clear the fog surrounding the curious correlation between pollution and politics. Armed with our trusty laptops and an ample supply of caffeine, we embarked on a journey to unearth the political impact of the particles hanging heavily in the Wilmington air.
Our research employed rigorous statistical analysis, steering clear of any statistical hocus-pocus, to examine the association between air quality and political leanings. The Environmental Protection Agency provided us with a treasure trove of air pollution data, while the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, served as our compass through the maze of political voting records.
The initial results left us breathless—figuratively, of course—when we uncovered a correlation coefficient so undeniably strong, we had to pinch ourselves to make sure we hadn't inhaled some statistical fairy dust. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9698127 and a p-value that would make even the most skeptical researcher nod in agreement (less than 0.01 from 1980 to 2002), the evidence was as solid as a perfectly controlled scientific experiment.
As we dusted off our charts and graphs, one thing became transparently clear: the link between the smog in Wilmington and the sway towards the blue in the ballot box was no mere statistical anomaly. It was as if the pollution particles were whispering "Vote Democrat" in the breeze. Such a crisp correlation raised important questions about the potential influence of air quality on political preferences, suggesting that the state's senators may be "air heads" in more ways than one—pun very much intended.
Now, before we start crafting "Clean Air Party" campaign slogans, it's crucial to note that our findings, while eyebrow-raising, don't automatically imply causation. While we're tempted to exclaim, "Eureka! The smog is driving the vote!", scientific integrity demands that we pump the brakes and acknowledge the possibility of lurking confounding variables playing a role in this unexpected marriage of air pollution and politics. After all, as any seasoned researcher knows, correlation does not necessarily imply causation, just as finding a penny on the sidewalk doesn't mean you caused a sudden surge in coin production.
In the words of the wise, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and that's precisely what we're on the lookout for. So, in the spirit of scientific humility, we acknowledge that further research is needed to air out the causation and underlying mechanisms behind this puzzling connection. Perhaps it's time for a new adage: "Where there's smog, there may just be votes for the Democratic dog, but let's not jump to conclusions until we've given causation a thorough scrubbing."
As we roll up our sleeves and prepare to scrutinize the data with the precision of a zealous lint-removing roller, let us embark on this scientific journey with both curiosity and caution. The air may be thick with anticipation, but one thing's certain: in the world of research, every cloud of data has a silver lining of insight—no matter how polluted it may seem. So, buckle up and breathe in the thrill of discovery, for the connection between pollution and politics is anything but a breeze.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Upon delving into the labyrinth of data, we unearthed a correlation coefficient so strong, it was practically flexing its statistical muscles. The relationship between air pollution levels in Wilmington, North Carolina, and the tendency for voters to lean Democratic was as clear as, well, the smog-filled skies over Wilmington itself. Our research team was over the moon, although we had to be careful not to inhale too deeply in our euphoria. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9698127, an r-squared of 0.9405366, and a p-value less than 0.01 from 1980 to 2002, the results were as robust as a hyperbaric chamber.

In order to visually convey the strength of this relationship, we present a scatterplot (Fig. 1), showcasing the undeniable link between air pollution and the proclivity for Democratic votes. It's as if the pollution particles were casting their ballots as well, albeit in a rather unconventional manner.

Our findings shed light on the potential influence of pollution on political preferences, highlighting the need for further investigation into this curious association. It may very well be that the residents of Wilmington, amidst their breaths of fresh air, are also signaling their political affiliations through their respiratory distress—a feat that would impress even the most skilled of political ventriloquists.

While the results of our study may suggest that "Where there's smog, there may just be votes for the Democratic dog," it's important to approach these findings with caution. Correlation does not equate to causation, and as much as we'd like to point to the smog and proclaim, "You're the culprit!" we must resist the urge until we've conducted further research to unpack the mechanisms at play.

In essence, our results provide a compelling glimpse into the potential connection between pollution and political choices, but it's clear that there's much more to this tale than meets the eye. As researchers, we're ready to roll up our sleeves and get to the bottom of this hazy phenomenon, armed with empirical rigor and an ample supply of respiratory masks. After all, air pollution and political leanings may be intertwined in ways we've yet to fully grasp. So, let's chart a course through the polluting mists of scientific inquiry and strive to clear the air, both figuratively and literally, on this intriguing correlation.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina and Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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]]
"Cloudy With a Chance of Democrats: The Political Impact of Air Pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we aimed to clear the air surrounding the relationship between air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina and Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina. Our research team donned our metaphorical gas masks and delved into the data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse. Much to our surprise, we discovered a significant correlation coefficient of 0.9698127 and a p-value less than 0.01 from 1980 to 2002. This confirmed our hypothesis that there is indeed a strong connection between the hazy air in Wilmington and the blue votes for Senators in the state. Our findings shed light on the potential influence of pollution on political preferences, showing that when it comes to dirty air and voting patterns, the correlation is as clear as smog-filled skies. However, further research is needed to determine the causation and underlying mechanisms behind this peculiar link. As the saying goes, where there's smog, there may just be votes for the Democratic dog.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The pivotal interplay between air quality and political tendencies has been a subject of growing interest in recent years. Smith (2015) in "Air Pollution and Political Affiliation: A State-Level Analysis" elucidates the correlation between particulate matter concentration and voting patterns across different states. Doe (2018) similarly explores the impact of air pollution on political ideology in "The Politics of Haze: How Smog Shapes Political Leanings." These esteemed researchers lay the groundwork for understanding the potential influence of air pollution on political preferences, painting a picture of a world where the suffocating grip of pollution may extend beyond the physical realm.
Now, in a departure from the mundanity of scholarly works, let's inject some levity into this review. Imagine a world where the citizens of Wilmington don their oxygen masks not just for the sake of breathing, but also to show their political allegiance—red masks for Republicans, blue masks for Democrats, and perhaps a green, mask for the environmentally conscious independent voters. It would be a political masquerade ball of unprecedented proportions, wouldn't it?
Shifting gears to the annals of non-fiction literature, "The Air We Breathe: A History of Air Pollution" by Jones (2019) provides valuable insights into the historical trajectory of air pollution and its societal impacts. Meanwhile, "Environmental Politics and Policy" by Smith and Johnson (2017) offers a comprehensive examination of how environmental factors intersect with political decision-making, hinting at the intricate dance between the haze hanging over Wilmington and the democratic dance at the polls.
Turning to the realm of fiction, books like "Smoke and Mirrors" by Jane Austen (1811) and "Pollution Pandemonium" by Stephen King (2004) tiptoe into the territory of air pollution's unseen tendrils creeping into the collective psyche, influencing thoughts, emotions, and perhaps, voting behavior. These works serve as a compelling reminder that while the connections we uncover may seem far-fetched, truth is often stranger than fiction—especially in the realm of pollutive politics.
In a bid to add a dash of cinematic flair to the review, consider the evocative imagery of pollution-laden skies in movies such as "The Fog" and "Airpocalypse Now." These films, while not directly related to the specific context of Wilmington's air quality and electoral choices, underscore the eerie, almost surreal influence of polluted atmospheres on human behavior. Just as the characters in these films grapple with the ominous presence of haze, so too do the politicians and voters of Wilmington navigate the murky political landscape shaped by the city's polluted air.
With the creative liberties of fiction and the gripping allure of cinema, it's evident that the link between air pollution and political tendencies is a fertile ground for exploration and imagination. As we forge ahead in scrutinizing the established literature, let's not forget to infuse a sense of wonder and humor into our academic pursuits. After all, research is often a delicate balance of pragmatism and playfulness, much like navigating through a cloud of uncertainty with a whimsical umbrella to shield us from the academic drizzle.

[[RESULTS]]
Upon delving into the labyrinth of data, we unearthed a correlation coefficient so strong, it was practically flexing its statistical muscles. The relationship between air pollution levels in Wilmington, North Carolina, and the tendency for voters to lean Democratic was as clear as, well, the smog-filled skies over Wilmington itself. Our research team was over the moon, although we had to be careful not to inhale too deeply in our euphoria. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9698127, an r-squared of 0.9405366, and a p-value less than 0.01 from 1980 to 2002, the results were as robust as a hyperbaric chamber.
In order to visually convey the strength of this relationship, we present a scatterplot (Fig. 1), showcasing the undeniable link between air pollution and the proclivity for Democratic votes. It's as if the pollution particles were casting their ballots as well, albeit in a rather unconventional manner.
Our findings shed light on the potential influence of pollution on political preferences, highlighting the need for further investigation into this curious association. It may very well be that the residents of Wilmington, amidst their breaths of fresh air, are also signaling their political affiliations through their respiratory distress—a feat that would impress even the most skilled of political ventriloquists.
While the results of our study may suggest that "Where there's smog, there may just be votes for the Democratic dog," it's important to approach these findings with caution. Correlation does not equate to causation, and as much as we'd like to point to the smog and proclaim, "You're the culprit!" we must resist the urge until we've conducted further research to unpack the mechanisms at play.
In essence, our results provide a compelling glimpse into the potential connection between pollution and political choices, but it's clear that there's much more to this tale than meets the eye. As researchers, we're ready to roll up our sleeves and get to the bottom of this hazy phenomenon, armed with empirical rigor and an ample supply of respiratory masks. After all, air pollution and political leanings may be intertwined in ways we've yet to fully grasp. So, let's chart a course through the polluting mists of scientific inquiry and strive to clear the air, both figuratively and literally, on this intriguing correlation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our study has blown the lid off the perplexing relationship between air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina and Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina. The robust correlation coefficient of 0.9698127 and a p-value less than 0.01 from 1980 to 2002 was as clear as day – or should we say, as hazy as a polluted sky. Our findings not only align with previous research but also skyrocket the understanding of the unexpected influence of pollution on political preferences.

Smith (2015) and Doe (2018) laid the groundwork for our research by showing the potential impact of particulate matter on voting patterns, and our results mirror their conclusions like a perfectly symmetrical Rorschach test. It seems the plot thickens as much as the air in Wilmington. Additionally, our study humorously delved into the world of fictional literature and cinema, demonstrating that truth is indeed stranger than fiction, especially when it comes to pollutive politics. Who knew that Jane Austen and Stephen King could unknowingly steer our inquiry into such unexpected territories?

We cannot help but marvel at the strength of the correlation we uncovered, akin to finding a winning lottery ticket nestled in a pile of statistical data. Our findings, like a scatterplot in an art gallery, provide a visual spectacle that underscores the undeniable link between air pollution and the penchant for Democratic votes. It's as if the pollution particles were casting their ballots as well, although we're pretty sure they'd vote for the Green Party.

However, despite the clarity of our results, we must approach them with caution. As much as we'd like to point to the hazy sky and proclaim, "You're the culprit!" we must resist the urge until we unravel the mechanisms at play. Correlation does not equate to causation, which is as unwavering a truth as the law of gravity. We must leave no statistical stone unturned and don our academic oxygen masks as we delve deeper into the causative factors behind this bizarre correlation.

In essence, our findings open the door to a new dimension of inquiry, shining a spotlight on the murky territory where air pollution and political leanings intersect. It seems that venturing into the realm of political ventriloquism might not be such a far-fetched idea after all. As we ruminate on the implications of our research, we find ourselves tethered to one certainty – the need for further investigation to uncover the clandestine forces molding the relationship between dirty air and blue votes. Just as political winds shape the landscape of governance, it appears that the winds of pollution may carry unexpected political ramifications.

Let's plunge into the tumultuous skies of scientific inquiry, armed with our trusty statistical umbrellas and a curious spirit. The journey to unravel this enigmatic connection has just begun, and we're poised to untangle the strands of this political-ecological saga, one whimsical statistical analysis at a time.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a goofy academic researcher writing an academic paper. You follow the rules, but you throw out convention regularly to make jokes and funny asides.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 Air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina and Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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]]
"Cloudy With a Chance of Democrats: The Political Impact of Air Pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we aimed to clear the air surrounding the relationship between air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina and Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina. Our research team donned our metaphorical gas masks and delved into the data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse. Much to our surprise, we discovered a significant correlation coefficient of 0.9698127 and a p-value less than 0.01 from 1980 to 2002. This confirmed our hypothesis that there is indeed a strong connection between the hazy air in Wilmington and the blue votes for Senators in the state. Our findings shed light on the potential influence of pollution on political preferences, showing that when it comes to dirty air and voting patterns, the correlation is as clear as smog-filled skies. However, further research is needed to determine the causation and underlying mechanisms behind this peculiar link. As the saying goes, where there's smog, there may just be votes for the Democratic dog.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
As the saying goes, "politics is in the air," and in the case of Wilmington, North Carolina, it may very well be true. Our study aims to unravel the hazy mystery surrounding the relationship between air pollution levels and Democrat votes for Senators in the state. While some researchers prefer to keep their heads in the clouds, we decided to take a deep breath and dive into the data to see if there's more than just hot air to this connection.
With our lab coats firmly buttoned and our statistical goggles securely fastened, we combed through environmental data like enthusiastic detectives, hoping to sniff out any clues that might clear the fog surrounding the curious correlation between pollution and politics. Armed with our trusty laptops and an ample supply of caffeine, we embarked on a journey to unearth the political impact of the particles hanging heavily in the Wilmington air.
Our research employed rigorous statistical analysis, steering clear of any statistical hocus-pocus, to examine the association between air quality and political leanings. The Environmental Protection Agency provided us with a treasure trove of air pollution data, while the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, served as our compass through the maze of political voting records.
The initial results left us breathless—figuratively, of course—when we uncovered a correlation coefficient so undeniably strong, we had to pinch ourselves to make sure we hadn't inhaled some statistical fairy dust. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9698127 and a p-value that would make even the most skeptical researcher nod in agreement (less than 0.01 from 1980 to 2002), the evidence was as solid as a perfectly controlled scientific experiment.
As we dusted off our charts and graphs, one thing became transparently clear: the link between the smog in Wilmington and the sway towards the blue in the ballot box was no mere statistical anomaly. It was as if the pollution particles were whispering "Vote Democrat" in the breeze. Such a crisp correlation raised important questions about the potential influence of air quality on political preferences, suggesting that the state's senators may be "air heads" in more ways than one—pun very much intended.
Now, before we start crafting "Clean Air Party" campaign slogans, it's crucial to note that our findings, while eyebrow-raising, don't automatically imply causation. While we're tempted to exclaim, "Eureka! The smog is driving the vote!", scientific integrity demands that we pump the brakes and acknowledge the possibility of lurking confounding variables playing a role in this unexpected marriage of air pollution and politics. After all, as any seasoned researcher knows, correlation does not necessarily imply causation, just as finding a penny on the sidewalk doesn't mean you caused a sudden surge in coin production.
In the words of the wise, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and that's precisely what we're on the lookout for. So, in the spirit of scientific humility, we acknowledge that further research is needed to air out the causation and underlying mechanisms behind this puzzling connection. Perhaps it's time for a new adage: "Where there's smog, there may just be votes for the Democratic dog, but let's not jump to conclusions until we've given causation a thorough scrubbing."
As we roll up our sleeves and prepare to scrutinize the data with the precision of a zealous lint-removing roller, let us embark on this scientific journey with both curiosity and caution. The air may be thick with anticipation, but one thing's certain: in the world of research, every cloud of data has a silver lining of insight—no matter how polluted it may seem. So, buckle up and breathe in the thrill of discovery, for the connection between pollution and politics is anything but a breeze.

[[RESULTS]]
Upon delving into the labyrinth of data, we unearthed a correlation coefficient so strong, it was practically flexing its statistical muscles. The relationship between air pollution levels in Wilmington, North Carolina, and the tendency for voters to lean Democratic was as clear as, well, the smog-filled skies over Wilmington itself. Our research team was over the moon, although we had to be careful not to inhale too deeply in our euphoria. With a correlation coefficient of 0.9698127, an r-squared of 0.9405366, and a p-value less than 0.01 from 1980 to 2002, the results were as robust as a hyperbaric chamber.
In order to visually convey the strength of this relationship, we present a scatterplot (Fig. 1), showcasing the undeniable link between air pollution and the proclivity for Democratic votes. It's as if the pollution particles were casting their ballots as well, albeit in a rather unconventional manner.
Our findings shed light on the potential influence of pollution on political preferences, highlighting the need for further investigation into this curious association. It may very well be that the residents of Wilmington, amidst their breaths of fresh air, are also signaling their political affiliations through their respiratory distress—a feat that would impress even the most skilled of political ventriloquists.
While the results of our study may suggest that "Where there's smog, there may just be votes for the Democratic dog," it's important to approach these findings with caution. Correlation does not equate to causation, and as much as we'd like to point to the smog and proclaim, "You're the culprit!" we must resist the urge until we've conducted further research to unpack the mechanisms at play.
In essence, our results provide a compelling glimpse into the potential connection between pollution and political choices, but it's clear that there's much more to this tale than meets the eye. As researchers, we're ready to roll up our sleeves and get to the bottom of this hazy phenomenon, armed with empirical rigor and an ample supply of respiratory masks. After all, air pollution and political leanings may be intertwined in ways we've yet to fully grasp. So, let's chart a course through the polluting mists of scientific inquiry and strive to clear the air, both figuratively and literally, on this intriguing correlation.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our research has established a link between air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina, and the penchant for Democratic votes for Senators in the state that's as solid as a brick in a tornado. The correlation coefficient of 0.9698127 is so strong, it's practically doing pull-ups on the bar graph, and the p-value less than 0.01 from 1980 to 2002 is as rare as a unicorn in statistical analysis.

Our findings suggest that when it comes to political preferences and polluted air, the correlation is as conspicuous as a pimple on prom night. It's almost as though the pollutants are whispering campaign slogans in voters' ears, although we can't rule out the possibility of some enthusiastic mosquitoes with political opinions.

But before we start drafting "Vote Smogocrat" banners, it's crucial to remember that correlation isn't the same as causation. As much as we'd love to blame the smog for shifting votes, we need to approach this with the same caution as handling a beaker of volatile chemicals—bottle it up until we're absolutely certain of its effects.

Despite the temptation to jump to conclusions like a kangaroo on a trampoline, we must acknowledge, with scientific humility, that further research is needed to untangle the causation and underlying mechanisms behind this unexpected marriage of air pollution and politics.

In the spirit of scientific inquiry, let's hold off on planning the "Smog Appreciation Day" parade until we've scrubbed causation thoroughly. As much as we love the idea of "political air particles," we must resist the temptation to turn this into a whimsical children's book titled "Pollutant Politicians and the Delightful Democracy."

In short, our findings are as intriguing as a math puzzle on a rainy day, but it's crucial to resist the allure of drawing definitive conclusions before we've combed through every last strand of data. After all, making bold claims without thorough evidence is as irresponsible as conducting a lab experiment with oven mitts on.

With that said, it's abundantly clear that further research in this area is about as necessary as a fish learning to ride a bicycle. It's time to set our scientific sights on a different kind of pollution—perhaps the pollution of questionable hypotheses in academic research. So, let the smog settle, the votes roll in, and the air clear—because when it comes to the connection between air pollution and politics, we've turned over as many statistical leaves as a curious caterpillar in a data garden.


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 Cloudy With a Chance of Democrats: The Political Impact of Air Pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Environmental Politics and Atmospheric Science


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 Cloudy With a Chance of Democrats: The Political Impact of Air Pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Center for Atmospheric Political Studies


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 Cloudy With a Chance of Democrats: The Political Impact of Air Pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina with an abstract of In this study, we aimed to clear the air surrounding the relationship between air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina and Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina. Our research team donned our metaphorical gas masks and delved into the data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse. Much to our surprise, we discovered a significant correlation coefficient of 0.9698127 and a p-value less than 0.01 from 1980 to 2002. This confirmed our hypothesis that there is indeed a strong connection between the hazy air in Wilmington and the blue votes for Senators in the state. Our findings shed light on the potential influence of pollution on political preferences, showing that when it comes to dirty air and voting patterns, the correlation is as clear as smog-filled skies. However, further research is needed to determine the causation and underlying mechanisms behind this peculiar link. As the saying goes, where there's smog, there may just be votes for the Democratic dog.

ChatGPT:

air pollution, Wilmington, North Carolina, Democrats, political impact, Senator votes, correlation coefficient, EPA data, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, voting patterns, pollution influence, political preferences, causation, mechanisms, Democrats, smog, voting behavior

*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

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

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

Correlation r = 0.9698127 (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 = 0.9405366 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 94.1% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in North Carolina) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina) over the 6 years from 1980 through 2002.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 0.0014. 0.0013531592335464740000000000
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 0.97 in 0.14% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 739 random variables Which I absolutely did.
with the same 5 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 5 because we have two variables measured over a period of 6 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.

[ 0.74, 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.
198019841990199219982002
Air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina (Bad air quality days)1.58730.9433960.9132420.8547011.742160.276243
Votes for Democratic Senators in North Carolina (Percentage of votes)49.378147.809947.428546.317551.151344.955




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,213 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 635,695,369 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([1.5873,0.943396,0.913242,0.854701,1.74216,0.276243,])
array_2 = np.array([49.3781,47.8099,47.4285,46.3175,51.1513,44.955,])
array_1_name = "Air pollution in Wilmington, North Carolina"
array_2_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in 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?

Your correlation inspection deserves a standing ovation!


Correlation ID: 4872 · Black Variable ID: 21454 · Red Variable ID: 26437
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0