Spurious correlation #4,974 · 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 the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Louisiana and the second variable is Gasoline pumped in Mozambique. 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 the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Louisiana and the second variable is Gasoline pumped in Mozambique. The chart goes from 1980 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time.

AI explanation

It's simple, really. As the support for the Libertarian candidate surged in Louisiana, it sparked a wave of excitement. This sudden spike in enthusiasm created a ripple effect, leading to an increase in happiness levels. Now, as we all know, happiness is contagious, just like laughter at a comedy show. This surge of happiness eventually reached all the way to Mozambique, where it influenced the mood at gasoline pumps. The customers, unknowingly powered by this happiness boost, felt strangely pumped up to fuel their vehicles, leading to an unexpected rise in gasoline pumped. It seems like even in the world of politics and petroleum, emotions truly are the driving force!

^{Show image generation prompt} Model: dalle-3
Prompt: Generate an image showing a jubilant crowd of people in Louisiana, USA, happily casting their votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate, with colorful balloons and confetti in the background. The joyful energy from the voting scene is portrayed as a dynamic wave traveling across the globe, transforming into vibrant fuel pumps in Mozambique surrounded by excited customers pumping gasoline. The visual should capture the contagious excitement and positivity spreading from the voting booth in Louisiana to the gasoline pump in Mozambique. The depiction should include only scenes, people, and objects, it should not include text or speech bubbles.

This image generation prompt was also generated by AI, using the following sequence:

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You select one of a few potential scene descriptors that seems to go along with the variables described. You respond only with the scene descriptions provided and say nothing else.
User prompt: Here are two variables: Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Louisiana and Gasoline pumped in Mozambique. 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: A Discovery magazine cover image a funny image you would see on reddit Psychedelic A comic-book-style illustration with muted colors and a dotted halftone pattern from the 1960s Futuristic
ChatGPT: A funny image you would see on reddit

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You describe simple visual scenes that depict the two variables stated. You combine both variables into one scene.
User prompt: Please describe a visual scene that prominently depicts both Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Louisiana and Gasoline pumped in Mozambique, in the following situation: It's simple, really. As the support for the Libertarian candidate surged in Louisiana, it sparked a wave of excitement. This sudden spike in enthusiasm created a ripple effect, leading to an increase in happiness levels. Now, as we all know, happiness is contagious, just like laughter at a comedy show. This surge of happiness eventually reached all the way to Mozambique, where it influenced the mood at gasoline pumps. The customers, unknowingly powered by this happiness boost, felt strangely pumped up to fuel their vehicles, leading to an unexpected rise in gasoline pumped. It seems like even in the world of politics and petroleum, emotions truly are the driving force!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In Louisiana, people enthusiastically cast their votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate, creating a surge of excitement and happiness. This wave of positivity traveled all the way to Mozambique, where customers at gasoline pumps felt unexpectedly pumped up, leading to an increase in gasoline pumped.

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: [ A funny image you would see on reddit ] and depicting this scene: In Louisiana, people enthusiastically cast their votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate, creating a surge of excitement and happiness. This wave of positivity traveled all the way to Mozambique, where customers at gasoline pumps felt unexpectedly pumped up, leading to an increase in gasoline pumped. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: Generate an image showing a jubilant crowd of people in Louisiana, USA, happily casting their votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate, with colorful balloons and confetti in the background. The joyful energy from the voting scene is portrayed as a dynamic wave traveling across the globe, transforming into vibrant fuel pumps in Mozambique surrounded by excited customers pumping gasoline. The visual should capture the contagious excitement and positivity spreading from the voting booth in Louisiana to the gasoline pump in Mozambique.

*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 Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Louisiana caused Gasoline pumped in Mozambique to increase. Include one good pun.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)

Libertarian Leanings: An Unexpected Correlation Between Votes for the Libertarian Presidential Candidate in Louisiana and Gasoline Pumped in Mozambique

The Journal of Quirky Social Sciences

Jan 2024

^{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 Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Louisiana and Gasoline pumped in Mozambique. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

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

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

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Libertarian Leanings: An Unexpected Correlation Between Votes for the Libertarian Presidential Candidate in Louisiana and Gasoline Pumped in Mozambique"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the obscure and unexpected relationship between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Louisiana and the volumetric level of gasoline pumped in Mozambique. While the initial premise may seem preposterous, our findings reveal a striking statistical correlation that demands further exploration.

Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team uncovered a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9614582 and a significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2020. We were shell-shocked to discover such a strong association between these seemingly unrelated variables. As one might say, the results were quite an "octane-um" mystery.

The implications of this unexpected link are far-reaching and may spark "fuelish" theories. Is there a deeper geopolitical undercurrent at play, or is this a mere statistical anomaly? Additionally, the potential for a "gas-tly" misunderstanding in policy-making cannot be overlooked. However, it is essential to approach these findings with caution, as correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and the "fuel-osophical" underpinnings of this relationship remain enigmatic.

As the world of research delves into the unusual bonds between disparate variables, our study sheds light on an unlikely pair. In doing so, we hope to inspire further investigation and, perhaps, a hearty chuckle at the intercontinental connection between Libertarian politics and Mozambican gasoline expenditure.

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
The world of statistical analysis is often a labyrinthine journey, leading researchers down unexpected paths and uncovering connections that defy logic. In this vein, our research seeks to unravel the mysterious correlation between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Louisiana and the volume of gasoline pumped in Mozambique. This seemingly incongruous relationship has captured our curiosity and led us to embark on a quest to examine its enigmatic nature.
As the sage once said, "I told a chemistry joke, but there was no reaction." Nevertheless, the results of our investigation have yielded a reaction indeed, as we were astounded to find a robust statistical correlation coefficient and a significant p-value. The strength of this association, much like a well-tuned engine, demands our attention and invites further scrutiny.
The discovery of such a confluence between seemingly unrelated variables prompts a gamut of questions and raises eyebrows as high as the price at the pump. It beckons us to ponder whether there exists an underlying nexus, a hidden "fuel-osophy", driving these parallel trends. Is there a clandestine force propelling voters in Louisiana to cast their ballots in a manner that resonates with the act of pumping gasoline in Mozambique? The conundrum is as confounding as trying to understand why gas stations never seem to have public restrooms.
Our research aims not only to uncover this curious correlation but also to caution against hasty interpretations. As any seasoned statistician knows, correlation does not imply causation, and rushing to conclusions is as unwise as using a banana peel to check tire traction. An abundance of caution is warranted, as we navigate through the convoluted terrain of this statistical linkage.
In the annals of research inquiries, our study marks a departure from the conventional, casting light on a most unexpected pair. The juxtaposition of Libertarian politics and Mozambican gasoline transactions may appear farcical at first glance, but as the data suggests, these variables have intersected in a manner both substantial and confounding. Much like a surprising punchline, our findings inspire intrigue and invite further exploration into the intertwining fabric of global phenomena. As we embark on this intellectual journey, we urge our fellow researchers to keep an open mind and embrace the unforeseen connections that beckon us with a knowing wink, much like a pun waiting to be unleashed.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

The authors find a dearth of existing literature directly addressing the connection between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Louisiana and the volume of gasoline pumped in Mozambique. However, our quest for understanding has led us to uncover relevant insights from studies on electoral voting patterns, energy consumption, and unexpected statistical correlations.

In "Statistical Analysis of Unlikely Associations" by Smith, the authors explore the unconventional relationships between disparate variables, shedding light on the potential for unexpected statistical linkages to emerge. This study serves as a precursor to our investigation, setting the stage for the exploration of an unanticipated bond between political behavior and energy utilization. Much like a surprising plot twist, our findings promise to captivate and confound.

Doe et al., in "Election Dynamics and Voter Behavior," delve into the intricate dance of voter preferences and electoral outcomes. While their focus remains centered on traditional political affiliations, the notion of voters' decisions being influenced by seemingly unrelated factors lays the groundwork for our examination of Libertarian leanings and gasoline consumption in a distant land. It's as if the intricacies of Mozambican gasoline pumping have been hiding in plain sight, waiting to be unearthed like buried treasure.

Jones et al., in "Energy Economics and Global Trends," offer valuable insights into the complexities of energy consumption across borders. While their work does not explicitly address the correlation between political ideology and fuel usage, it primes us for the unexpected wonder of discovering a substantial statistical relationship that defies conventional wisdom. The interplay of global energy dynamics and ideological undercurrents, much like a punchline waiting to land, form the backdrop against which our investigation unfolds.

Turning to non-fiction literature, books such as "The Power Surge: Energy, Opportunity, and the Battle for America's Future" by Michael Levi and "The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom" by David Boaz provide a tangential backdrop for our exploration, offering a lens through which to view the intersection of political ideology and energy sociodynamics. It's akin to witnessing a cross-genre literary fusion, where political philosophy meets energy geopolitics with unexpected resonance.

Likewise, fiction works such as "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand and "The Mosquito Coast" by Paul Theroux present themes of individualism, societal organization, and unconventional narratives that parallel our foray into unearthing an unexpected correlation between political voting behavior and gasoline consumption. It's as if the realm of fiction offers glimpses into the enigmatic threads of reality, teasing us with parallels that surprise and inspire contemplation.

On a cinematic note, movies like "There Will Be Blood" and "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" offer tangentially related glimpses into human behavior, ambition, and unpredictability, much like the curious connection we've uncovered. As the reel of our research unfolds, the unexpected intersections of political choices and patterns of gasoline usage yield a spectacle that rivals the drama and absurdity of the silver screen, leaving us both bewildered and amused.

In a whirlwind of unlikely correlations and unforeseen parallels, our study invites both mirth and introspection. As we navigate the sea of improbable statistical relationships, let us approach this exploration with an open mind and a willingness to embrace the unexpected, akin to a punchline waiting to catch us off guard.

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 Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Louisiana and Gasoline pumped in Mozambique. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Your research team collected data from all across the internet, but mostly just used information from 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]]
"Libertarian Leanings: An Unexpected Correlation Between Votes for the Libertarian Presidential Candidate in Louisiana and Gasoline Pumped in Mozambique"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the obscure and unexpected relationship between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Louisiana and the volumetric level of gasoline pumped in Mozambique. While the initial premise may seem preposterous, our findings reveal a striking statistical correlation that demands further exploration.

Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team uncovered a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9614582 and a significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2020. We were shell-shocked to discover such a strong association between these seemingly unrelated variables. As one might say, the results were quite an "octane-um" mystery.

The implications of this unexpected link are far-reaching and may spark "fuelish" theories. Is there a deeper geopolitical undercurrent at play, or is this a mere statistical anomaly? Additionally, the potential for a "gas-tly" misunderstanding in policy-making cannot be overlooked. However, it is essential to approach these findings with caution, as correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and the "fuel-osophical" underpinnings of this relationship remain enigmatic.

As the world of research delves into the unusual bonds between disparate variables, our study sheds light on an unlikely pair. In doing so, we hope to inspire further investigation and, perhaps, a hearty chuckle at the intercontinental connection between Libertarian politics and Mozambican gasoline expenditure.

[[INTRODUCTION]]
The world of statistical analysis is often a labyrinthine journey, leading researchers down unexpected paths and uncovering connections that defy logic. In this vein, our research seeks to unravel the mysterious correlation between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Louisiana and the volume of gasoline pumped in Mozambique. This seemingly incongruous relationship has captured our curiosity and led us to embark on a quest to examine its enigmatic nature.
As the sage once said, "I told a chemistry joke, but there was no reaction." Nevertheless, the results of our investigation have yielded a reaction indeed, as we were astounded to find a robust statistical correlation coefficient and a significant p-value. The strength of this association, much like a well-tuned engine, demands our attention and invites further scrutiny.
The discovery of such a confluence between seemingly unrelated variables prompts a gamut of questions and raises eyebrows as high as the price at the pump. It beckons us to ponder whether there exists an underlying nexus, a hidden "fuel-osophy", driving these parallel trends. Is there a clandestine force propelling voters in Louisiana to cast their ballots in a manner that resonates with the act of pumping gasoline in Mozambique? The conundrum is as confounding as trying to understand why gas stations never seem to have public restrooms.
Our research aims not only to uncover this curious correlation but also to caution against hasty interpretations. As any seasoned statistician knows, correlation does not imply causation, and rushing to conclusions is as unwise as using a banana peel to check tire traction. An abundance of caution is warranted, as we navigate through the convoluted terrain of this statistical linkage.
In the annals of research inquiries, our study marks a departure from the conventional, casting light on a most unexpected pair. The juxtaposition of Libertarian politics and Mozambican gasoline transactions may appear farcical at first glance, but as the data suggests, these variables have intersected in a manner both substantial and confounding. Much like a surprising punchline, our findings inspire intrigue and invite further exploration into the intertwining fabric of global phenomena. As we embark on this intellectual journey, we urge our fellow researchers to keep an open mind and embrace the unforeseen connections that beckon us with a knowing wink, much like a pun waiting to be unleashed.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

Data Collection:
Our research approach encompassed a wide array of techniques, including data scraping from reputable sources and leveraging advanced statistical modeling. We procured data on votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Louisiana from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and cross-referenced it with the volumetric level of gasoline pumped in Mozambique obtained from the Energy Information Administration. The Harvard Dataverse served as a supplementary source to validate the accuracy and consistency of the data. Our data collection process was as meticulous as a librarian organizing a chaotic bookshelf, ensuring that no statistical stone was left unturned.

Statistical Analysis:
To unravel the intricate web of correlations, we employed an assortment of statistical analyses, including but not limited to linear regression, time series analysis, and principal component analysis. These analytical methods allowed us to pierce through the veils of randomness and discern the underlying patterns, much like a detective solving a case of statistical intrigue. The use of such diverse approaches ensured a comprehensive assessment of the relationship between votes for the Libertarian candidate in Louisiana and the gasoline consumption patterns in Mozambique, leaving no statistical conjecture unexplored.

Normalization and Transformation:
In order to alleviate potential outliers and skewness within the data, we undertook rigorous normalization and transformation procedures. This involved adjusting the data to conform to standard distributions and mitigating the influence of extreme values. We rigorously scrutinized each data point, resembling a discerning sommelier sifting through fine wine, to ensure that the statistical "bouquet" was neither overpowering nor diluted. Such procedures not only enhanced the reliability of our analyses but also imbued our findings with a mathematical finesse akin to a perfectly executed quadratic equation.

Testing Sensitivity and Robustness:
As is customary in rigorous statistical research, we conducted sensitivity analyses and robustness checks to ascertain the stability and consistency of our findings. Our sensitivity analyses scrutinized the impact of varying model specifications, while robustness checks meticulously probed the resilience of our results to perturbations in the data. Such testing procedures were as meticulous as a tightrope walker, ensuring that our statistical inferences were not swayed by superficial fluctuations and stood firm against the test of rigorous scrutiny.

Model Validation and Cross-Validation:
To further fortify the veracity of our findings, we engaged in model validation and cross-validation exercises. These methodologies served to validate the accuracy and predictive power of our statistical models while guarding against overfitting and model misspecification. We scrutinized our models with the vigilance of a hawk eyeing its prey, ensuring that our statistical inferences were not marred by delusions of grandeur but instead were firmly grounded in the bedrock of empirical scrutiny.

Post-Analysis Interpretation:
Upon obtaining our results, we engaged in a comprehensive interpretation exercise, elucidating the implications of our findings within the broader contexts of political behavior and energy consumption. While rigorously anchoring our interpretations in statistical evidence, we also honed our insights with a touch of discerning intuition, akin to a seasoned chef finely balancing flavors in an exquisite dish. This approach ensured that our interpretations were not only statistically sound but also resonated with the nuanced realities shaping the dynamics of Libertarian voters in Louisiana and gasoline consumption in Mozambique.

---

As an academic researcher, I have blended serious research methods with clever puns and witty asides, all while maintaining the integrity of the methodology section. If you require any additional adjustments or further elaboration, feel free to let me know!

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 Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Louisiana and Gasoline pumped in Mozambique. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

Limit your response to 500 tokens.

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

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

[[TITLE]]
"Libertarian Leanings: An Unexpected Correlation Between Votes for the Libertarian Presidential Candidate in Louisiana and Gasoline Pumped in Mozambique"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the obscure and unexpected relationship between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Louisiana and the volumetric level of gasoline pumped in Mozambique. While the initial premise may seem preposterous, our findings reveal a striking statistical correlation that demands further exploration.

Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team uncovered a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9614582 and a significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2020. We were shell-shocked to discover such a strong association between these seemingly unrelated variables. As one might say, the results were quite an "octane-um" mystery.

The implications of this unexpected link are far-reaching and may spark "fuelish" theories. Is there a deeper geopolitical undercurrent at play, or is this a mere statistical anomaly? Additionally, the potential for a "gas-tly" misunderstanding in policy-making cannot be overlooked. However, it is essential to approach these findings with caution, as correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and the "fuel-osophical" underpinnings of this relationship remain enigmatic.

As the world of research delves into the unusual bonds between disparate variables, our study sheds light on an unlikely pair. In doing so, we hope to inspire further investigation and, perhaps, a hearty chuckle at the intercontinental connection between Libertarian politics and Mozambican gasoline expenditure.

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
The authors find a dearth of existing literature directly addressing the connection between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Louisiana and the volume of gasoline pumped in Mozambique. However, our quest for understanding has led us to uncover relevant insights from studies on electoral voting patterns, energy consumption, and unexpected statistical correlations.
In "Statistical Analysis of Unlikely Associations" by Smith, the authors explore the unconventional relationships between disparate variables, shedding light on the potential for unexpected statistical linkages to emerge. This study serves as a precursor to our investigation, setting the stage for the exploration of an unanticipated bond between political behavior and energy utilization. Much like a surprising plot twist, our findings promise to captivate and confound.
Doe et al., in "Election Dynamics and Voter Behavior," delve into the intricate dance of voter preferences and electoral outcomes. While their focus remains centered on traditional political affiliations, the notion of voters' decisions being influenced by seemingly unrelated factors lays the groundwork for our examination of Libertarian leanings and gasoline consumption in a distant land. It's as if the intricacies of Mozambican gasoline pumping have been hiding in plain sight, waiting to be unearthed like buried treasure.
Jones et al., in "Energy Economics and Global Trends," offer valuable insights into the complexities of energy consumption across borders. While their work does not explicitly address the correlation between political ideology and fuel usage, it primes us for the unexpected wonder of discovering a substantial statistical relationship that defies conventional wisdom. The interplay of global energy dynamics and ideological undercurrents, much like a punchline waiting to land, form the backdrop against which our investigation unfolds.
Turning to non-fiction literature, books such as "The Power Surge: Energy, Opportunity, and the Battle for America's Future" by Michael Levi and "The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom" by David Boaz provide a tangential backdrop for our exploration, offering a lens through which to view the intersection of political ideology and energy sociodynamics. It's akin to witnessing a cross-genre literary fusion, where political philosophy meets energy geopolitics with unexpected resonance.
Likewise, fiction works such as "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand and "The Mosquito Coast" by Paul Theroux present themes of individualism, societal organization, and unconventional narratives that parallel our foray into unearthing an unexpected correlation between political voting behavior and gasoline consumption. It's as if the realm of fiction offers glimpses into the enigmatic threads of reality, teasing us with parallels that surprise and inspire contemplation.
On a cinematic note, movies like "There Will Be Blood" and "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" offer tangentially related glimpses into human behavior, ambition, and unpredictability, much like the curious connection we've uncovered. As the reel of our research unfolds, the unexpected intersections of political choices and patterns of gasoline usage yield a spectacle that rivals the drama and absurdity of the silver screen, leaving us both bewildered and amused.
In a whirlwind of unlikely correlations and unforeseen parallels, our study invites both mirth and introspection. As we navigate the sea of improbable statistical relationships, let us approach this exploration with an open mind and a willingness to embrace the unexpected, akin to a punchline waiting to catch us off guard.

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation into the perplexing correlation between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Louisiana and the volume of gasoline pumped in Mozambique yielded truly astonishing results. From 1980 to 2020, we discovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9614582, signifying a remarkably strong relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. The r-squared value of 0.9244019 indicated that a substantial proportion of the variance in gasoline consumption in Mozambique could be explained by the votes for the Libertarian candidate in Louisiana. This relationship was significant at p < 0.01, demonstrating statistical robustness and leaving us pondering, "what in the world-oil is going on here?"
Fig. 1 presents a scatterplot that visually encapsulates the unexpected linkage between these variables. The data points align in a strikingly linear fashion, exemplifying the substantial correlation we observed. It's a graph so surprising it might just "fuel" an animated discussion at the next research conference.
Our findings emphasize the need for prudence in interpreting statistical relationships, even when they appear as clear as an empty gas tank on a hot summer day. While the strength of the correlation suggests a compelling association, caution must be exercised in attributing causality. As the old adage goes, "correlation does not imply causation – unless you're dealing with two cars at a four-way stop, in which case, good luck."
In light of these results, it becomes imperative to approach this unanticipated connection with a nuanced perspective, lest we find ourselves lost in a "fuel-some" chase for causative explanations. We must exercise restraint, much like a cautious driver navigating the treacherous terrain of an ambiguous rural gas station restroom sign. Nonetheless, our discovery presents an intellectually stimulating enigma that beckons the research community to explore its ramifications and ponder the interconnectedness of global phenomena, much like a particularly perplexing punchline at a scientific stand-up comedy show.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

The unexpected correlation between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Louisiana and the volume of gasoline pumped in Mozambique, as revealed in our study, has prompted both fascination and skepticism. While the initial premise of this investigation may have elicited raised eyebrows and perhaps stifled chuckles, our findings underscore the potential for hitherto unexplored interrelationships to emerge between seemingly disparate variables.

Our results lend weight to the prior research that explored the realm of unlikely statistical associations. The work of Smith, which delved into unconventional relationships between disparate variables, has found resonance in our discovery of a robust correlation between political voting behavior and energy consumption. It's as if the threads of statistical curiosity have woven a tapestry that even the most discerning observer might find difficult to unravel – a statistical riddle wrapped in an enigma, "fueling" the imagination of researchers and statisticians alike.

Moreover, the evaluation of voter behavior in the study by Doe et al. laid the foundation for our inquiry into the unexpected bond between Libertarian leanings and gasoline usage in Mozambique. The intricate dance of voter preferences and electoral outcomes, although initially unrelated to our exploration of energy dynamics, has culminated in the revelation of a connection that beckons further study and introspection. It's akin to a plot twist in a mystery novel, ensnaring the attention and curiosity of academic sleuths.

The weaving of global energy dynamics and ideological undercurrents in the study by Jones et al., although not specifically addressing the correlation we unveiled, provided a contextual backdrop against which our research unfolded. This backdrop reflects the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate realms, much like the whimsical interplay of characters in a Shakespearean comedy – unexpected, yet inextricably linked.

In light of these findings, we urge caution in interpreting this correlation as indicative of a causative relationship. As the age-old adage reminds us, correlation does not necessarily imply causation, unless, of course, you find a libertarian presidential candidate directly fueling Mozambican gas consumption – a scenario as likely as finding a functioning turn signal on a highway during rush hour.

Nevertheless, the unexpected revelation of this correlation underscores the potential for unanticipated linkages to exist between phenomena that may, prima facie, appear wholly unrelated. Our findings beckon the research community to engage in a scholarly pursuit that embraces the unexpected and entertains the prospect of uncovering further surprising statistical relationships. In doing so, we aspire to broaden the horizons of empirical inquiry, much like a professor cracking dad jokes at a research symposium – simultaneously enlightening and entertaining.

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 Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Louisiana and Gasoline pumped in Mozambique. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences. Stay serious and dry most of the time, but then occasionally let your wit shine through.

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

Here are the title, abstract, introduction, and results sections.
[[TITLE]]
"Libertarian Leanings: An Unexpected Correlation Between Votes for the Libertarian Presidential Candidate in Louisiana and Gasoline Pumped in Mozambique"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this study, we delve into the obscure and unexpected relationship between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Louisiana and the volumetric level of gasoline pumped in Mozambique. While the initial premise may seem preposterous, our findings reveal a striking statistical correlation that demands further exploration.

Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team uncovered a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9614582 and a significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2020. We were shell-shocked to discover such a strong association between these seemingly unrelated variables. As one might say, the results were quite an "octane-um" mystery.

The implications of this unexpected link are far-reaching and may spark "fuelish" theories. Is there a deeper geopolitical undercurrent at play, or is this a mere statistical anomaly? Additionally, the potential for a "gas-tly" misunderstanding in policy-making cannot be overlooked. However, it is essential to approach these findings with caution, as correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and the "fuel-osophical" underpinnings of this relationship remain enigmatic.

As the world of research delves into the unusual bonds between disparate variables, our study sheds light on an unlikely pair. In doing so, we hope to inspire further investigation and, perhaps, a hearty chuckle at the intercontinental connection between Libertarian politics and Mozambican gasoline expenditure.

[[INTRDUCTION]]
The world of statistical analysis is often a labyrinthine journey, leading researchers down unexpected paths and uncovering connections that defy logic. In this vein, our research seeks to unravel the mysterious correlation between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Louisiana and the volume of gasoline pumped in Mozambique. This seemingly incongruous relationship has captured our curiosity and led us to embark on a quest to examine its enigmatic nature.
As the sage once said, "I told a chemistry joke, but there was no reaction." Nevertheless, the results of our investigation have yielded a reaction indeed, as we were astounded to find a robust statistical correlation coefficient and a significant p-value. The strength of this association, much like a well-tuned engine, demands our attention and invites further scrutiny.
The discovery of such a confluence between seemingly unrelated variables prompts a gamut of questions and raises eyebrows as high as the price at the pump. It beckons us to ponder whether there exists an underlying nexus, a hidden "fuel-osophy", driving these parallel trends. Is there a clandestine force propelling voters in Louisiana to cast their ballots in a manner that resonates with the act of pumping gasoline in Mozambique? The conundrum is as confounding as trying to understand why gas stations never seem to have public restrooms.
Our research aims not only to uncover this curious correlation but also to caution against hasty interpretations. As any seasoned statistician knows, correlation does not imply causation, and rushing to conclusions is as unwise as using a banana peel to check tire traction. An abundance of caution is warranted, as we navigate through the convoluted terrain of this statistical linkage.
In the annals of research inquiries, our study marks a departure from the conventional, casting light on a most unexpected pair. The juxtaposition of Libertarian politics and Mozambican gasoline transactions may appear farcical at first glance, but as the data suggests, these variables have intersected in a manner both substantial and confounding. Much like a surprising punchline, our findings inspire intrigue and invite further exploration into the intertwining fabric of global phenomena. As we embark on this intellectual journey, we urge our fellow researchers to keep an open mind and embrace the unforeseen connections that beckon us with a knowing wink, much like a pun waiting to be unleashed.

[[RESULTS]]
Our investigation into the perplexing correlation between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Louisiana and the volume of gasoline pumped in Mozambique yielded truly astonishing results. From 1980 to 2020, we discovered a correlation coefficient of 0.9614582, signifying a remarkably strong relationship between these seemingly unrelated variables. The r-squared value of 0.9244019 indicated that a substantial proportion of the variance in gasoline consumption in Mozambique could be explained by the votes for the Libertarian candidate in Louisiana. This relationship was significant at p < 0.01, demonstrating statistical robustness and leaving us pondering, "what in the world-oil is going on here?"
Fig. 1 presents a scatterplot that visually encapsulates the unexpected linkage between these variables. The data points align in a strikingly linear fashion, exemplifying the substantial correlation we observed. It's a graph so surprising it might just "fuel" an animated discussion at the next research conference.
Our findings emphasize the need for prudence in interpreting statistical relationships, even when they appear as clear as an empty gas tank on a hot summer day. While the strength of the correlation suggests a compelling association, caution must be exercised in attributing causality. As the old adage goes, "correlation does not imply causation – unless you're dealing with two cars at a four-way stop, in which case, good luck."
In light of these results, it becomes imperative to approach this unanticipated connection with a nuanced perspective, lest we find ourselves lost in a "fuel-some" chase for causative explanations. We must exercise restraint, much like a cautious driver navigating the treacherous terrain of an ambiguous rural gas station restroom sign. Nonetheless, our discovery presents an intellectually stimulating enigma that beckons the research community to explore its ramifications and ponder the interconnectedness of global phenomena, much like a particularly perplexing punchline at a scientific stand-up comedy show.

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]

ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

In conclusion, our investigation into the uncanny correlation between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Louisiana and the volume of gasoline pumped in Mozambique has opened a Pandora's box of intertwining enigmas. The staggering correlation coefficient of 0.9614582 and a significance level of p < 0.01 between these disparate variables prompts us to ponder not only the statistical robustness of our findings but also the amusing absurdity of this unexpected nexus.

This "octane-um" mystery, much like a dad joke at a family gathering, elicits both bewilderment and a chuckle. The findings unearthed in our study underscore the need for cautious interpretation and further investigation, lest we mistaken correlation for causation, much like mistaking a gas can for a clown car – they might look similar, but one will definitely not entertain you at a child's birthday party.

As we close this chapter on the correlation between Libertarian leanings and Mozambican gasoline consumption, we can confidently assert that no further research is necessary in this area. For now, let's leave this entertaining statistical oddity to simmer, like a quirky roadside attraction that makes us smile and ponder the infinite quirkiness of the world, much like a good dad joke: simple, unexpected, and leaving us shaking our heads.

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 Libertarian Leanings: An Unexpected Correlation Between Votes for the Libertarian Presidential Candidate in Louisiana and Gasoline Pumped in Mozambique. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Quirky Social Sciences

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 Libertarian Leanings: An Unexpected Correlation Between Votes for the Libertarian Presidential Candidate in Louisiana and Gasoline Pumped in Mozambique. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Institute for Global Policy and Energy Research

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 Libertarian Leanings: An Unexpected Correlation Between Votes for the Libertarian Presidential Candidate in Louisiana and Gasoline Pumped in Mozambique with an abstract of In this study, we delve into the obscure and unexpected relationship between votes for the Libertarian presidential candidate in Louisiana and the volumetric level of gasoline pumped in Mozambique. While the initial premise may seem preposterous, our findings reveal a striking statistical correlation that demands further exploration.
Utilizing data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, our research team uncovered a surprising correlation coefficient of 0.9614582 and a significance level of p < 0.01 for the period spanning from 1980 to 2020. We were shell-shocked to discover such a strong association between these seemingly unrelated variables. As one might say, the results were quite an "octane-um" mystery.
The implications of this unexpected link are far-reaching and may spark "fuelish" theories. Is there a deeper geopolitical undercurrent at play, or is this a mere statistical anomaly? Additionally, the potential for a "gas-tly" misunderstanding in policy-making cannot be overlooked. However, it is essential to approach these findings with caution, as correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and the "fuel-osophical" underpinnings of this relationship remain enigmatic.
As the world of research delves into the unusual bonds between disparate variables, our study sheds light on an unlikely pair. In doing so, we hope to inspire further investigation and, perhaps, a hearty chuckle at the intercontinental connection between Libertarian politics and Mozambican gasoline expenditure.

ChatGPT:

"Libertarian presidential candidate Louisiana," "gasoline consumption Mozambique," "correlation coefficient," "statistical significance," "MIT Election Data and Science Lab," "Harvard Dataverse," "Energy Information Administration," "geopolitical implications," "causation vs correlation," "unusual statistical relationships," "disparate variables research," "intercontinental connections," "unconventional correlations"

*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 the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Louisiana
Detailed data title: Percentage of all votes cast for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Louisiana
Source: MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse
See what else correlates with Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Louisiana

Gasoline pumped in Mozambique
Detailed data title: Volume of gasoline pumped consumed in Mozambique in millions of barrels per day
Source: Energy Information Administration
See what else correlates with Gasoline pumped in Mozambique

Correlation r = 0.9614582 (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 = 0.9244019 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 92.4% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Gasoline pumped in Mozambique) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Louisiana) over the 10 years from 1980 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 9.2E-6.^Show 0.0000092145907088637060000000
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 0.96 in 0.00092% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 108,524 random variables^Note You don't actually need 108 thousand variables to find a correlation like this one. I don't have that many variables in my database. You can also correlate variables that are not independent. I do this a lot.

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

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

Just to be clear: I'm being completely transparent about the calculations. There is no math trickery. This is just how statistics shakes out when you calculate hundreds of millions of random correlations.
with the same 9 degrees of freedom, ^Note Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 9 because we have two variables measured over a period of 10 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.

[ 0.84, 0.99 ] 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	1984	1988	1992	1996	2000	2004	2012	2016	2020
Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Louisiana (Percentage of votes)	0.532097	0.109912	0.252733	0.176255	0.420357	0.167133	0.143121	0.910552	1.87173	1.00765
Gasoline pumped in Mozambique (Million Barrels/Day)	1.55579	1.43611	0.8	0.9	0.9	1.23522	1.5615	4.12516	11	6.52019

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([0.532097,0.109912,0.252733,0.176255,0.420357,0.167133,0.143121,0.910552,1.87173,1.00765,])
array_2 = np.array([1.55579,1.43611,0.8,0.9,0.9,1.23522,1.5615,4.12516,11,6.52019,])
array_1_name = "Votes for the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Louisiana"
array_2_name = "Gasoline pumped in Mozambique"

# 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 the Libertarian Presidential candidate in Louisiana
Line chart for only Gasoline pumped in Mozambique
AI-generated correlation image
The spurious research paper: Libertarian Leanings: An Unexpected Correlation Between Votes for the Libertarian Presidential Candidate in Louisiana and Gasoline Pumped in Mozambique

View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

I'm genuinely thankful for your rating!

Correlation ID: 4974 · Black Variable ID: 26104 · Red Variable ID: 24718


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