Spurious correlation #4,883 · View random
A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for Republican Senators in Louisiana and the second variable is Liquefied petroleum gas used in New Zealand. The chart goes from 1980 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

A linear line chart with years as the X-axis and two variables on the Y-axis. The first variable is Votes for Republican Senators in Louisiana and the second variable is Liquefied petroleum gas used in New Zealand. The chart goes from 1980 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

Download png, svg

AI explanation

As the Republican votes ignited in Louisiana, it created a fiery passion for gas-related policies. This sparked a chain reaction, leading to increased demand for LPG in New Zealand. It seems like the political hot air from Louisiana traveled all the way to Kiwi land, fueling the LPG usage. It's a politi-gas phenomenon unlike any other!

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image showing a surreal scene where in Louisiana, a vibrant, glowing red flame emerges to symbolize Republican votes, pulsating with fervent energy. This flame, crackling with passion, traverses across the ocean, crossing continents to reach New Zealand. There, the flame becomes the source of energy for a group of people depicted using LPG for cooking and heating. The fiery trail linking the flame and the LPG users signifies the intricate connection between political influence and gas-related policies in New Zealand. The entire scene carries an air of surrealism, creating a visually captivating representation of the influence of Republican votes on gas-related practices in the distant setting of New Zealand. 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: Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and Liquefied petroleum gas used in New Zealand. 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: Hyper-realistic Whimsical illustration Concept art Cyberpunk Surrealism
ChatGPT: Surrealism

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 Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and Liquefied petroleum gas used in New Zealand, in the following situation: As the Republican votes ignited in Louisiana, it created a fiery passion for gas-related policies. This sparked a chain reaction, leading to increased demand for LPG in New Zealand. It seems like the political hot air from Louisiana traveled all the way to Kiwi land, fueling the LPG usage. It's a politi-gas phenomenon unlike any other!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Louisiana, Republican votes are represented by a glowing red flame, igniting with passion. The flame travels across the ocean to New Zealand, where it fuels the demand for LPG, depicted by a group of people using LPG for cooking and heating. The flame and the LPG users are connected by a fiery trail, symbolizing the political influence on gas-related policies in New Zealand.

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: [ Surrealism ] and depicting this scene: In Louisiana, Republican votes are represented by a glowing red flame, igniting with passion. The flame travels across the ocean to New Zealand, where it fuels the demand for LPG, depicted by a group of people using LPG for cooking and heating. The flame and the LPG users are connected by a fiery trail, symbolizing the political influence on gas-related policies in New Zealand. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image showing a surreal scene where in Louisiana, a vibrant, glowing red flame emerges to symbolize Republican votes, pulsating with fervent energy. This flame, crackling with passion, traverses across the ocean, crossing continents to reach New Zealand. There, the flame becomes the source of energy for a group of people depicted using LPG for cooking and heating. The fiery trail linking the flame and the LPG users signifies the intricate connection between political influence and gas-related policies in New Zealand. The entire scene carries an air of surrealism, creating a visually captivating representation of the influence of Republican votes on gas-related practices in the distant setting of New Zealand.

*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.
^{Show prompt for explanation} 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 Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana caused Liquefied petroleum gas used in New Zealand to increase. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)

The Republican Gas Pass: Assessing the Correlation between GOP Votes in Louisiana and LPG Usage in New Zealand

The Journal of International Political Flatulence Studies

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!

^{Show prompt used to generate this paper} 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 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 Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and Liquefied petroleum gas used in New Zealand. 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 you might move on to cartoons and children's shows that you watched for research.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Republican Gas Pass: Assessing the Correlation between GOP Votes in Louisiana and LPG Usage in New Zealand

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the peculiar relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the distant land of New Zealand. Drawing on the eccentricities of political affiliations and energy preferences, we utilized data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration to scrutinize this unexpected correlation. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.9109178 and p < 0.01 from 1980 to 2020, leaving researchers scratching their heads, pondering the whims of statistical fate. With puns like "gas pass" and "GOP votes," this study will have readers questioning whether statistical connections can sometimes be, well, a gas!

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and energy consumption has long been a topic of interest for researchers, often yielding surprisingly insightful correlations and, in some cases, leading to head-scratching perplexity. In this study, we embark on an unorthodox journey, exploring the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in the state of Louisiana and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the far-off land of New Zealand. The “Republican Gas Pass,” as we affectionately dub this peculiar phenomenon, presents itself as a conundrum worthy of exploration - and perhaps a few raised eyebrows.
On the surface, the pairing of Republican votes in Louisiana with LPG usage in New Zealand may seem as incongruous as a chicken attending a penguin convention. However, statistical analyses, like deep-sea divers exploring uncharted waters, often uncover unexpected treasures amidst the murky depths of data. The correlation coefficient of 0.9109178, coupled with a p-value less than 0.01, has left scholars in awe and amusement, pondering the whims of statistical fate and the fanciful connections it may weave. As we navigate through the perplexing labyrinth of this correlation, we invite readers to join us in this scholarly amusement park, where the rides are thrilling and the theories are dizzying.
The motivation for this investigation stems from the ever-curious nature of scientific inquiry. With data sourced from reputable repositories such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, this study endeavors to uphold the academic tradition of rigorous research while also sprinkling in a dash of mirth. As we delve into the unexpected entanglement of Republican votes and LPG usage, we aim not only to uncover correlations but to showcase the whimsical and often capricious nature of statistical connections. After all, sometimes statistical relationships can be as surprising and delightful as finding a hidden compartment in a time-traveling DeLorean.
In the following sections, we will meticulously dissect the data, construct robust models that would make even the most seasoned statistician nod with approval, and interpret our findings with the utmost academic gravitas – peppered, of course, with occasional lighthearted musings. So, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for a scholarly exploration that promises to be as entertaining as it is enlightening. After all, who knew that Republican votes and LPG usage could make for such a captivating statistical waltz?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In their 2015 study "Gasoline and Politics: A Correlational Analysis of Republican Votes and Energy Consumption," Smith and Doe delved into the intricate and often surprising interplay between political affiliations and energy usage. Their findings suggested a potential connection between Republican votes and gasoline consumption, sparking intrigue among scholars and prompting further exploration into the realm of political energy preferences.

Jones and Smith expanded upon this line of inquiry in their 2018 publication "Energy Partisanship: Unraveling the Political Threads of Energy Usage." Their study uncovered a strong correlation between conservative voting patterns and the consumption of natural gas, providing compelling evidence of the intricate dance between political leanings and energy choices.

As we venture deeper into the literature, it is important to note the profound impact of energy policies on political landscapes. Works such as "Energy and Elections: A Comprehensive Analysis" by Johnson and Williams illuminate the multifaceted nature of energy-related political decisions, shedding light on the complex dynamics that underpin electoral outcomes.

Now, while these scholarly works provide valuable insights into the broader relationship between political affiliations and energy preferences, our investigation takes an unorthodox turn, leading us to exclaim, "Liquified Petroleum Gas and Republican Votes: A Statistical Tango of Global Proportions!"

In the realm of non-fiction, books like "An Odyssey of Propane: Exploring the World of LPG" by J. D. Foster and "Republican Shenanigans and Kiwi Gas: A Cross-Continental Analysis" by A. E. Winter offer intriguing perspectives on the enigmatic connection we are about to explore.

In the whimsical world of fiction, titles such as "Gaslighting in Gondor: A Tale of Political Machinations" and "The Propane Prophecy: A Gasps-Worthy Mystery" beckon us to consider the unexpected twists and turns that await us as we unravel the enthralling correlation between Republican votes in Louisiana and LPG consumption in New Zealand.

As we expand our scholarly horizons, it is crucial to acknowledge the unconventional sources of inspiration that have informed our inquiry. From dissecting the political dynamics of "Paw Patrol" to uncovering the subliminal messaging about energy choices in "SpongeBob SquarePants," our research has embraced a multidisciplinary approach, drawing on insights from children's entertainment to further contextualize the nuanced relationship between political affiliations and energy usage.

With our literature review serving as a springboard for our own investigation, we are poised to embark on a scholarly escapade that promises to be as enlightening as it is delightfully unexpected. After all, who could have anticipated that a statistical exploration of Republican votes and LPG consumption would lead us on such a whimsical and gasp-inducing journey?

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 Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and Liquefied petroleum gas used in New Zealand. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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 MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Energy Information Administration . You used data from 1980 to 2020

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

Here is the title, abstract, and introduction of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
The Republican Gas Pass: Assessing the Correlation between GOP Votes in Louisiana and LPG Usage in New Zealand

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the peculiar relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the distant land of New Zealand. Drawing on the eccentricities of political affiliations and energy preferences, we utilized data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration to scrutinize this unexpected correlation. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.9109178 and p < 0.01 from 1980 to 2020, leaving researchers scratching their heads, pondering the whims of statistical fate. With puns like "gas pass" and "GOP votes," this study will have readers questioning whether statistical connections can sometimes be, well, a gas!

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and energy consumption has long been a topic of interest for researchers, often yielding surprisingly insightful correlations and, in some cases, leading to head-scratching perplexity. In this study, we embark on an unorthodox journey, exploring the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in the state of Louisiana and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the far-off land of New Zealand. The “Republican Gas Pass,” as we affectionately dub this peculiar phenomenon, presents itself as a conundrum worthy of exploration - and perhaps a few raised eyebrows.
On the surface, the pairing of Republican votes in Louisiana with LPG usage in New Zealand may seem as incongruous as a chicken attending a penguin convention. However, statistical analyses, like deep-sea divers exploring uncharted waters, often uncover unexpected treasures amidst the murky depths of data. The correlation coefficient of 0.9109178, coupled with a p-value less than 0.01, has left scholars in awe and amusement, pondering the whims of statistical fate and the fanciful connections it may weave. As we navigate through the perplexing labyrinth of this correlation, we invite readers to join us in this scholarly amusement park, where the rides are thrilling and the theories are dizzying.
The motivation for this investigation stems from the ever-curious nature of scientific inquiry. With data sourced from reputable repositories such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, this study endeavors to uphold the academic tradition of rigorous research while also sprinkling in a dash of mirth. As we delve into the unexpected entanglement of Republican votes and LPG usage, we aim not only to uncover correlations but to showcase the whimsical and often capricious nature of statistical connections. After all, sometimes statistical relationships can be as surprising and delightful as finding a hidden compartment in a time-traveling DeLorean.
In the following sections, we will meticulously dissect the data, construct robust models that would make even the most seasoned statistician nod with approval, and interpret our findings with the utmost academic gravitas – peppered, of course, with occasional lighthearted musings. So, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for a scholarly exploration that promises to be as entertaining as it is enlightening. After all, who knew that Republican votes and LPG usage could make for such a captivating statistical waltz?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

In order to unravel the enigmatic correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the distant and picturesque land of New Zealand, our research team embarked on a quest that would make Indiana Jones proud. Our methodology, much like a Swiss army knife, comprised a multifaceted approach that involved data wrangling, statistical acrobatics, and a few eureka moments thrown in for good measure.

Data Collection: Like intrepid treasure hunters scavenging for hidden riches, we scoured the depths of the internet, with a keen eye on reputable repositories such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration. From these treasure troves of data, we extracted information spanning the years 1980 to 2020, capturing the ebbs and flows of political preferences in Louisiana and the ebullience of LPG consumption in New Zealand.

Statistical Alchemy: Armed with an arsenal of statistical tools that would make even Sherlock Holmes blush, we conducted a rigorous analysis to distill meaningful insights from the data. We employed correlation analysis, regression modeling, and time-series analyses to tease out the intricate dance between Republican votes and LPG usage, akin to deciphering a cryptic message left by an ancient civilization.

Model Construction: Building robust models that could withstand the capricious whims of statistical fate was akin to constructing a formidable fortress to guard against the onslaught of data uncertainties. We employed cutting-edge regression techniques, harnessing the power of multiple variables to capture the nuances of this unconventional correlation, all while channeling our inner mathematician and mad scientist.

Validation and Sensitivity Analysis: Much like the delicate task of untangling a pair of headphones, our research underwent meticulous validation and sensitivity analyses to ensure that our findings were not mere illusions conjured by statistical sleight of hand. We scrutinized our models with a discerning eye, subjecting them to stress tests and sensitivity checks, like a pastry chef testing the resilience of a soufflé to withstand the oven’s heat.

Interpretation and Discussion: With the data meticulously dissected and the models standing tall like guardians of empirical truth, we waded into the deep waters of interpretation and discussion, ready to unveil the mysteries lurking within this peculiar correlation. Our analysis, akin to performing precision surgery on a Rubik’s cube, sought to unearth the underlying dynamics and implications of the “Republican Gas Pass,” propelling our scholarly exploration into the annals of statistical folklore.

In conclusion, our methodology, though arduous and at times reminiscent of unraveling a particularly stubborn knot, laid the foundation for a robust investigation into the whimsical nexus of Republican votes and LPG usage. With our scholarly compass pointing true north, we embarked on this journey with equal parts rigor and humor, exemplifying the scholarly pursuit of knowledge while infusing it with a touch of unorthodox charm.

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 Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and Liquefied petroleum gas used in New Zealand. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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 MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Energy Information Administration .

For the time period 1980 to 2020, you found a correlation 0.9109178, r-squared of 0.8297713, 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]]
The Republican Gas Pass: Assessing the Correlation between GOP Votes in Louisiana and LPG Usage in New Zealand

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the peculiar relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the distant land of New Zealand. Drawing on the eccentricities of political affiliations and energy preferences, we utilized data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration to scrutinize this unexpected correlation. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.9109178 and p < 0.01 from 1980 to 2020, leaving researchers scratching their heads, pondering the whims of statistical fate. With puns like "gas pass" and "GOP votes," this study will have readers questioning whether statistical connections can sometimes be, well, a gas!

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
The intersection of politics and energy consumption has long been a topic of interest for researchers, often yielding surprisingly insightful correlations and, in some cases, leading to head-scratching perplexity. In this study, we embark on an unorthodox journey, exploring the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in the state of Louisiana and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the far-off land of New Zealand. The “Republican Gas Pass,” as we affectionately dub this peculiar phenomenon, presents itself as a conundrum worthy of exploration - and perhaps a few raised eyebrows.
On the surface, the pairing of Republican votes in Louisiana with LPG usage in New Zealand may seem as incongruous as a chicken attending a penguin convention. However, statistical analyses, like deep-sea divers exploring uncharted waters, often uncover unexpected treasures amidst the murky depths of data. The correlation coefficient of 0.9109178, coupled with a p-value less than 0.01, has left scholars in awe and amusement, pondering the whims of statistical fate and the fanciful connections it may weave. As we navigate through the perplexing labyrinth of this correlation, we invite readers to join us in this scholarly amusement park, where the rides are thrilling and the theories are dizzying.
The motivation for this investigation stems from the ever-curious nature of scientific inquiry. With data sourced from reputable repositories such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, this study endeavors to uphold the academic tradition of rigorous research while also sprinkling in a dash of mirth. As we delve into the unexpected entanglement of Republican votes and LPG usage, we aim not only to uncover correlations but to showcase the whimsical and often capricious nature of statistical connections. After all, sometimes statistical relationships can be as surprising and delightful as finding a hidden compartment in a time-traveling DeLorean.
In the following sections, we will meticulously dissect the data, construct robust models that would make even the most seasoned statistician nod with approval, and interpret our findings with the utmost academic gravitas – peppered, of course, with occasional lighthearted musings. So, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for a scholarly exploration that promises to be as entertaining as it is enlightening. After all, who knew that Republican votes and LPG usage could make for such a captivating statistical waltz?

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]

ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

Our analysis of the correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) usage in New Zealand yielded a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9109178, with an r-squared of 0.8297713, and a p-value less than 0.01. In other words, there appears to be a robust statistical relationship between these seemingly disparate variables, prompting delight and bewilderment in equal measure.

Fig. 1 presents a scatterplot showcasing the remarkably strong positive correlation between the Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and LPG usage in New Zealand. It's a sight to behold, akin to witnessing a coordinated dance between two entities as unlikely as a Cajun crawfish and a kiwi bird.

The pronounced correlation coefficient reinforces the notion that statistical relationships can often be as unexpected as finding a rubber chicken in a library. While we must interpret these results with the sober-minded rigor befitting academia, it's hard to suppress an amused chuckle at the capricious nature of statistical fate. The chances of such a strong connection appearing by sheer randomness are about as likely as finding a pot of gold at the end of a statistical rainbow.

These findings underscore the peculiar and enigmatic nature of statistical associations, reminding us that even in the realm of data analysis, the universe is a mischievous trickster, delighting in confounding our expectations. This correlation between Republican votes in Louisiana and LPG usage in New Zealand serves as a testament to the whimsical dance of numbers and the unexpected links they can unveil.

It's akin to an elaborate magic trick - the statistical kind - leaving us in awe at the dazzling performance while also pondering how a rabbit ended up in our data analysis hat. So, while we may approach our conclusions with scholarly earnestness, we can't help but appreciate the statistical showmanship that this correlation presents.

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 Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and Liquefied petroleum gas used in New Zealand. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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]]
The Republican Gas Pass: Assessing the Correlation between GOP Votes in Louisiana and LPG Usage in New Zealand

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the peculiar relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the distant land of New Zealand. Drawing on the eccentricities of political affiliations and energy preferences, we utilized data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration to scrutinize this unexpected correlation. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.9109178 and p < 0.01 from 1980 to 2020, leaving researchers scratching their heads, pondering the whims of statistical fate. With puns like "gas pass" and "GOP votes," this study will have readers questioning whether statistical connections can sometimes be, well, a gas!

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In their 2015 study "Gasoline and Politics: A Correlational Analysis of Republican Votes and Energy Consumption," Smith and Doe delved into the intricate and often surprising interplay between political affiliations and energy usage. Their findings suggested a potential connection between Republican votes and gasoline consumption, sparking intrigue among scholars and prompting further exploration into the realm of political energy preferences.
Jones and Smith expanded upon this line of inquiry in their 2018 publication "Energy Partisanship: Unraveling the Political Threads of Energy Usage." Their study uncovered a strong correlation between conservative voting patterns and the consumption of natural gas, providing compelling evidence of the intricate dance between political leanings and energy choices.
As we venture deeper into the literature, it is important to note the profound impact of energy policies on political landscapes. Works such as "Energy and Elections: A Comprehensive Analysis" by Johnson and Williams illuminate the multifaceted nature of energy-related political decisions, shedding light on the complex dynamics that underpin electoral outcomes.
Now, while these scholarly works provide valuable insights into the broader relationship between political affiliations and energy preferences, our investigation takes an unorthodox turn, leading us to exclaim, "Liquified Petroleum Gas and Republican Votes: A Statistical Tango of Global Proportions!"
In the realm of non-fiction, books like "An Odyssey of Propane: Exploring the World of LPG" by J. D. Foster and "Republican Shenanigans and Kiwi Gas: A Cross-Continental Analysis" by A. E. Winter offer intriguing perspectives on the enigmatic connection we are about to explore.
In the whimsical world of fiction, titles such as "Gaslighting in Gondor: A Tale of Political Machinations" and "The Propane Prophecy: A Gasps-Worthy Mystery" beckon us to consider the unexpected twists and turns that await us as we unravel the enthralling correlation between Republican votes in Louisiana and LPG consumption in New Zealand.
As we expand our scholarly horizons, it is crucial to acknowledge the unconventional sources of inspiration that have informed our inquiry. From dissecting the political dynamics of "Paw Patrol" to uncovering the subliminal messaging about energy choices in "SpongeBob SquarePants," our research has embraced a multidisciplinary approach, drawing on insights from children's entertainment to further contextualize the nuanced relationship between political affiliations and energy usage.
With our literature review serving as a springboard for our own investigation, we are poised to embark on a scholarly escapade that promises to be as enlightening as it is delightfully unexpected. After all, who could have anticipated that a statistical exploration of Republican votes and LPG consumption would lead us on such a whimsical and gasp-inducing journey?

[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis of the correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) usage in New Zealand yielded a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9109178, with an r-squared of 0.8297713, and a p-value less than 0.01. In other words, there appears to be a robust statistical relationship between these seemingly disparate variables, prompting delight and bewilderment in equal measure.
Fig. 1 presents a scatterplot showcasing the remarkably strong positive correlation between the Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and LPG usage in New Zealand. It's a sight to behold, akin to witnessing a coordinated dance between two entities as unlikely as a Cajun crawfish and a kiwi bird.
The pronounced correlation coefficient reinforces the notion that statistical relationships can often be as unexpected as finding a rubber chicken in a library. While we must interpret these results with the sober-minded rigor befitting academia, it's hard to suppress an amused chuckle at the capricious nature of statistical fate. The chances of such a strong connection appearing by sheer randomness are about as likely as finding a pot of gold at the end of a statistical rainbow.
These findings underscore the peculiar and enigmatic nature of statistical associations, reminding us that even in the realm of data analysis, the universe is a mischievous trickster, delighting in confounding our expectations. This correlation between Republican votes in Louisiana and LPG usage in New Zealand serves as a testament to the whimsical dance of numbers and the unexpected links they can unveil.
It's akin to an elaborate magic trick - the statistical kind - leaving us in awe at the dazzling performance while also pondering how a rabbit ended up in our data analysis hat. So, while we may approach our conclusions with scholarly earnestness, we can't help but appreciate the statistical showmanship that this correlation presents.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The striking correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) usage in New Zealand not only elicits scientific intrigue but also offers a whimsical dalliance with the capricious nature of statistical associations. Our findings align with prior research, echoing the unexpected connections unearthed by Smith and Doe’s "Gasoline and Politics" and Jones and Smith’s "Energy Partisanship." It's as if statistical fate has choreographed a quirky pas de deux between political leanings and energy proclivities, leaving us marveling at the unexpected synergy between seemingly unrelated variables.

Drawing from the scholarly tapestry we encountered in the literature review, our analysis has illuminated a truly curious phenomenon, reminiscent of a magnetic force that defies traditional boundaries - much like a Republican rally in the heart of Auckland or an LPG tanker adorned with "Don't Tread on Me" bumper stickers. The robust correlation coefficient lends credence to the notion that statistical relationships can sometimes unfold like a scripted comedy, with timing and synchrony that elicit both amusement and incredulity.

While we maintain a steadfast commitment to scholarly rigor, it's impossible to disregard the whimsical dance of numbers and their delightfully enigmatic connections. The observed correlation between Republican votes in Louisiana and LPG usage in New Zealand serves as a testament to the confounding yet captivating nature of statistical revelations, akin to discovering a cherished childhood toy in the attic of data analysis.

In the grand tapestry of academic inquiry, our unorthodox exploration reaffirms the multidimensional influence of energy preferences on political landscapes, leaving us with a comforting reminder that even in the most sober realms of research, the unexpected may lay dormant, waiting to be discovered – much like a political epiphany manifesting in the misty hills of Hobbiton.

Consequently, our findings not only uphold the legacy of prior research but also engender a sense of marvel at the whimsical spectacle of statistical discovery. After all, who could have anticipated that a statistical exploration of Republican votes and LPG consumption would lead us on such a whimsical and gasp-inducing journey?

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 Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and Liquefied petroleum gas used in New Zealand. Make lots of jokes, goofy observations, and puns. 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]]
The Republican Gas Pass: Assessing the Correlation between GOP Votes in Louisiana and LPG Usage in New Zealand

[[ABSTRACT]]
This paper delves into the peculiar relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the distant land of New Zealand. Drawing on the eccentricities of political affiliations and energy preferences, we utilized data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration to scrutinize this unexpected correlation. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.9109178 and p < 0.01 from 1980 to 2020, leaving researchers scratching their heads, pondering the whims of statistical fate. With puns like "gas pass" and "GOP votes," this study will have readers questioning whether statistical connections can sometimes be, well, a gas!

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The intersection of politics and energy consumption has long been a topic of interest for researchers, often yielding surprisingly insightful correlations and, in some cases, leading to head-scratching perplexity. In this study, we embark on an unorthodox journey, exploring the relationship between Republican votes for Senators in the state of Louisiana and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the far-off land of New Zealand. The “Republican Gas Pass,” as we affectionately dub this peculiar phenomenon, presents itself as a conundrum worthy of exploration - and perhaps a few raised eyebrows.
On the surface, the pairing of Republican votes in Louisiana with LPG usage in New Zealand may seem as incongruous as a chicken attending a penguin convention. However, statistical analyses, like deep-sea divers exploring uncharted waters, often uncover unexpected treasures amidst the murky depths of data. The correlation coefficient of 0.9109178, coupled with a p-value less than 0.01, has left scholars in awe and amusement, pondering the whims of statistical fate and the fanciful connections it may weave. As we navigate through the perplexing labyrinth of this correlation, we invite readers to join us in this scholarly amusement park, where the rides are thrilling and the theories are dizzying.
The motivation for this investigation stems from the ever-curious nature of scientific inquiry. With data sourced from reputable repositories such as the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, this study endeavors to uphold the academic tradition of rigorous research while also sprinkling in a dash of mirth. As we delve into the unexpected entanglement of Republican votes and LPG usage, we aim not only to uncover correlations but to showcase the whimsical and often capricious nature of statistical connections. After all, sometimes statistical relationships can be as surprising and delightful as finding a hidden compartment in a time-traveling DeLorean.
In the following sections, we will meticulously dissect the data, construct robust models that would make even the most seasoned statistician nod with approval, and interpret our findings with the utmost academic gravitas – peppered, of course, with occasional lighthearted musings. So, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for a scholarly exploration that promises to be as entertaining as it is enlightening. After all, who knew that Republican votes and LPG usage could make for such a captivating statistical waltz?

[[RESULTS]]
Our analysis of the correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) usage in New Zealand yielded a substantial correlation coefficient of 0.9109178, with an r-squared of 0.8297713, and a p-value less than 0.01. In other words, there appears to be a robust statistical relationship between these seemingly disparate variables, prompting delight and bewilderment in equal measure.
Fig. 1 presents a scatterplot showcasing the remarkably strong positive correlation between the Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and LPG usage in New Zealand. It's a sight to behold, akin to witnessing a coordinated dance between two entities as unlikely as a Cajun crawfish and a kiwi bird.
The pronounced correlation coefficient reinforces the notion that statistical relationships can often be as unexpected as finding a rubber chicken in a library. While we must interpret these results with the sober-minded rigor befitting academia, it's hard to suppress an amused chuckle at the capricious nature of statistical fate. The chances of such a strong connection appearing by sheer randomness are about as likely as finding a pot of gold at the end of a statistical rainbow.
These findings underscore the peculiar and enigmatic nature of statistical associations, reminding us that even in the realm of data analysis, the universe is a mischievous trickster, delighting in confounding our expectations. This correlation between Republican votes in Louisiana and LPG usage in New Zealand serves as a testament to the whimsical dance of numbers and the unexpected links they can unveil.
It's akin to an elaborate magic trick - the statistical kind - leaving us in awe at the dazzling performance while also pondering how a rabbit ended up in our data analysis hat. So, while we may approach our conclusions with scholarly earnestness, we can't help but appreciate the statistical showmanship that this correlation presents.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]
In this scholarly exploration, we've delved into the peculiar correlation between Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in New Zealand. Our findings have revealed a robust statistical relationship that is as surprising as finding a rubber chicken in a library or a Cajun crawfish dancing the hula. The correlation coefficient of 0.9109178 and p-value less than 0.01 have left us scratching our heads in bewilderment, much like trying to decipher the lyrics of a Kiwi bird's song.

As tempting as it is to unravel this statistical magic trick further, we must assert that no more research is needed in this area. After all, when it comes to statistical connections, sometimes it's best to leave a few mysteries unsolved, like the enigma of why anyone would wear a tuxedo to a beach party. So, let's bid adieu to this unlikely statistical waltz between Republican votes and LPG usage, and instead, direct our academic curiosities toward more conventional correlations.

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 The Republican Gas Pass: Assessing the Correlation between GOP Votes in Louisiana and LPG Usage in New Zealand. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of International Political Flatulence Studies

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You provide fictional names of nonprofit research organizations and associations. You say nothing else, and you do not chat with the user.
User prompt: Please provide the name of a funny but plausible sounding nonprofit, academic, or scientific association or organization that would sponsor research that resulted in a paper entited The Republican Gas Pass: Assessing the Correlation between GOP Votes in Louisiana and LPG Usage in New Zealand. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Geopolitical Energy and Political Analysis (SGEPA)

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 The Republican Gas Pass: Assessing the Correlation between GOP Votes in Louisiana and LPG Usage in New Zealand with an abstract of This paper delves into the peculiar relationship between Republican votes for Senators in Louisiana and the consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in the distant land of New Zealand. Drawing on the eccentricities of political affiliations and energy preferences, we utilized data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration to scrutinize this unexpected correlation. Our findings revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.9109178 and p < 0.01 from 1980 to 2020, leaving researchers scratching their heads, pondering the whims of statistical fate. With puns like "gas pass" and "GOP votes," this study will have readers questioning whether statistical connections can sometimes be, well, a gas!

ChatGPT:

Republican votes, Louisiana, LPG usage, New Zealand, correlation, GOP votes, Senators, energy preferences, political affiliations, MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, Energy Information Administration, statistical correlation, statistical fate, political eccentricities

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

Random correlation

Discover a new correlation

View all correlations

View all research papers

Report an error

Data details

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

Liquefied petroleum gas used in New Zealand
Detailed data title: Volume of liquefied petroleum gas used consumed in New Zealand in millions of barrels per day
Source: Energy Information Administration
See what else correlates with Liquefied petroleum gas used in New Zealand

Correlation r = 0.9109178 (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 = 0.8297713 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 83% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Liquefied petroleum gas used in New Zealand) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Republican Senators in Louisiana) over the 11 years from 1980 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 9.7E-5.^Show 0.0000966356742911391700000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme.^Note 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 0.91 in 0.0097% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 10,348 random variables^Note Which I absolutely did.
with the same 10 degrees of freedom, ^Note Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 10 because we have two variables measured over a period of 11 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.

[ 0.69, 0.98 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
^{Read more about the confidence interval} 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: ^Note 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.

	1980	1986	1996	1998	2002	2004	2008	2010	2014	2016	2020
Votes for Republican Senators in Louisiana (Percentage of votes)	2.8474	47.1795	49.8298	32.4589	49.5378	51.0274	45.7233	56.5548	54.7547	62.0608	61.1762
Liquefied petroleum gas used in New Zealand (Million Barrels/Day)	0.07	3.13973	3.86885	3.43562	4.38356	5.01366	5.44809	4.48219	4.83288	5.39071	5.86885

Why this works

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.
Lack of causal connection: There is probably^Note 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.
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^Note Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.

Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. ^{Show the steps to do this.} 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([2.8474,47.1795,49.8298,32.4589,49.5378,51.0274,45.7233,56.5548,54.7547,62.0608,61.1762,])
array_2 = np.array([0.07,3.13973,3.86885,3.43562,4.38356,5.01366,5.44809,4.48219,4.83288,5.39071,5.86885,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Republican Senators in Louisiana"
array_2_name = "Liquefied petroleum gas used in New Zealand"

# 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. ^Note 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:

High resolution line chart ^Note The image linked here is a Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG). It is the highest resolution that is possible to achieve. It scales up beyond the size of the observable universe without pixelating. You do not need to email me asking if I have a higher resolution image. I do not. The physical limitations of our universe prevent me from providing you with an image that is any higher resolution than this one.

If you insert it into a PowerPoint presentation (a tool well-known for managing things that are the scale of the universe), you can right-click > "Ungroup" or "Create Shape" and then edit the lines and text directly. You can also change the colors this way.

Alternatively you can use a tool like Inkscape.
High resolution line chart, optimized for mobile
Alternative high resolution line chart
Scatterplot
Portable line chart (png)
Portable line chart (png), optimized for mobile
Line chart for only Votes for Republican Senators in Louisiana
Line chart for only Liquefied petroleum gas used in New Zealand
AI-generated correlation image
The spurious research paper: The Republican Gas Pass: Assessing the Correlation between GOP Votes in Louisiana and LPG Usage in New Zealand

View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

Your rating is much appreciated!

Correlation ID: 4883 · Black Variable ID: 26395 · Red Variable ID: 24752


Problem variable:
Issue:
Additional details: Optional
Confirm you are a human: