about · email me · subscribe
Spurious correlation #5,182 · 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 Democratic Senators in North Carolina and the second variable is Biomass power generated in Argentina.  The chart goes from 1980 to 2020, and the two variables track closely in value over that time. Small Image
Download png
, svg

AI explanation

As the Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina increased, there was a corresponding surge in positivity. This positivity somehow traveled all the way to Argentina, leading to a sudden spike in enthusiasm for Biomass power. It's as if the pro-environment vibes rode the political wave and ended up supercharging the Biomass power generation in Argentina. Who knew that political support and renewable energy could be connected by a wave of good vibes across continents!

Model: dalle-3
Prompt: [ Cutsy graphics ] Create an image of a joyful group of people in North Carolina happily casting their Democrat votes for Senators, with a sense of positivity and excitement in the air. As the positivity travels across the ocean to Argentina, depict Biomass power plants becoming animated and emanating vibrant, energetic vibes. Show how the surge in political support leads to a corresponding spike in enthusiasm for Biomass power generation in Argentina, almost as if the good vibes have physically supercharged the renewable energy efforts in the country. 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: Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and Biomass power generated in Argentina. 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: Glitch art Art nouveau Cutsy graphics A photo-realistic image 3D Pixar Style
ChatGPT: Cutsy graphics

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 Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and Biomass power generated in Argentina, in the following situation: As the Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina increased, there was a corresponding surge in positivity. This positivity somehow traveled all the way to Argentina, leading to a sudden spike in enthusiasm for Biomass power. It's as if the pro-environment vibes rode the political wave and ended up supercharging the Biomass power generation in Argentina. Who knew that political support and renewable energy could be connected by a wave of good vibes across continents!. Keep the description simple.
ChatGPT: In North Carolina, an increasing number of Democrat votes for Senators sparked a sense of positivity, with people smiling and cheering. This positivity traveled across the ocean to Argentina, where Biomass power plants suddenly became more energetic, emitting positive vibes of their own. The surge in political support led to a corresponding spike in enthusiasm for Biomass power generation, as if the good vibes had supercharged the renewable energy efforts in Argentina.

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: [ Cutsy graphics ] and depicting this scene: In North Carolina, an increasing number of Democrat votes for Senators sparked a sense of positivity, with people smiling and cheering. This positivity traveled across the ocean to Argentina, where Biomass power plants suddenly became more energetic, emitting positive vibes of their own. The surge in political support led to a corresponding spike in enthusiasm for Biomass power generation, as if the good vibes had supercharged the renewable energy efforts in Argentina. Keep the visual depiction simple. Do not include any words or speech bubbles.
ChatGPT: [ Cutsy graphics ] Create an image of a joyful group of people in North Carolina happily casting their Democrat votes for Senators, with a sense of positivity and excitement in the air. As the positivity travels across the ocean to Argentina, depict Biomass power plants becoming animated and emanating vibrant, energetic vibes. Show how the surge in political support leads to a corresponding spike in enthusiasm for Biomass power generation in Argentina, almost as if the good vibes have physically supercharged the renewable energy efforts in the country.

*Variations in the User Prompts from chart to chart are just the result of random number generation in Python. I wrote a few arrays of various styles and methods to ask questions to change up the results. Every time this site writes an explanation or generates an image, the script picks from each at random.

I sequence the requests into multiple prompts because I find GPT 3.5 to perform much better with short, well-managed contexts. Thus, I track the context directly in Python and only ask ChatGPT targeted questions.

Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 (fine-tuned)
System prompt: You provide humorous responses in the form of plausible sounding explanations for correlations. You assume the correlation is causative for the purpose of the explanation even if it is ridiculous. You do not chat with the user, you only reply with the causal connection explanation and nothing else.
User prompt: Please make up a funny explanation for how an increase in Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina caused Biomass power generated in Argentina to increase. Make it feel plausible.

AI academic paper

(Because p < 0.01)
Senators' Votes and Biomass Rates: A Connection That Relates

The Journal of Political Ecology and Environmental Economics

Jan 2024

Reminder: This paper is AI-generated. Not real!
Quick note: This sequence is long and repetitive. That's how the prompt engineering works for this one. I manage the output in Python to format it into this PDF.




Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You write titles and abstracts of goofy academic research papers.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, and add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please draft the title and abstract of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and Biomass power generated in Argentina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Rhyme words in the title.

Your research team used data from MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse and Energy Information Administration to assess this nagging question. You found a correlation coefficient of 0.8983907 and p < 0.01 for 1980 to 2020.

Please respond in this format (replace "Lorem ipsum dolor sit" with your title and abstract)

[[TITLE]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit

[[ABSTRACT]]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit



ChatGPT:
[[TITLE]]
"Senators' Votes and Biomass Rates: A Connection That Relates"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we explore the unexpected yet captivating correlation between the votes cast for Democratic senators in North Carolina and the biomass power generated in Argentina. By delving into extensive data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, we have unveiled a connection worthy of attention. Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.8983907 and p < 0.01 for the time span from 1980 to 2020, highlighting a surprisingly robust association. It seems that political preferences in the Tar Heel State have an unforeseen influence on energy production across the globe. One might even say it's a "biomass-tifying" revelation!

Despite the initial skepticism surrounding such an unorthodox link, our thorough analysis has proved that there is more than meets the eye. As we unravel this unexpected association, it becomes clear that the joke is not on us – rather, it's a case of political decisions transcending borders. With this insight, we not only shed light on an intriguing phenomenon but also showcase the unanticipated interconnectedness within the realms of politics and energy generation. Our study calls for further investigation into the interplay of political dynamics and global energy trends, demonstrating that there's more to the political and environmental landscape than what meets the eye. And in the spirit of connectivity, perhaps it's time for us all to "vote for a greener future" – no matter where we are on the map!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the introduction section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the introduction section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and Biomass power generated in Argentina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Senators' Votes and Biomass Rates: A Connection That Relates"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we explore the unexpected yet captivating correlation between the votes cast for Democratic senators in North Carolina and the biomass power generated in Argentina. By delving into extensive data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, we have unveiled a connection worthy of attention. Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.8983907 and p < 0.01 for the time span from 1980 to 2020, highlighting a surprisingly robust association. It seems that political preferences in the Tar Heel State have an unforeseen influence on energy production across the globe. One might even say it's a "biomass-tifying" revelation!

Despite the initial skepticism surrounding such an unorthodox link, our thorough analysis has proved that there is more than meets the eye. As we unravel this unexpected association, it becomes clear that the joke is not on us – rather, it's a case of political decisions transcending borders. With this insight, we not only shed light on an intriguing phenomenon but also showcase the unanticipated interconnectedness within the realms of politics and energy generation. Our study calls for further investigation into the interplay of political dynamics and global energy trends, demonstrating that there's more to the political and environmental landscape than what meets the eye. And in the spirit of connectivity, perhaps it's time for us all to "vote for a greener future" – no matter where we are on the map!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[INTRODUCTION]]



ChatGPT:
[[INTRODUCTION]]

Politics and energy – a pair unlikely to tango, right? Well, hold on to your hats because we're about to shake up that notion! In this pioneering study, we uncover a correlation that will have you saying, "Oh, biomass-tification!" As we embark on this illuminating journey, let's dive deep into the world of politics, power, and a few surprises from far-flung lands.

"Vote for a greener future," they say – and in a twist of events, it seems that this call to action resonates across the oceans. Now, let's not jump the gun; we haven't gone bio-psycho, but our investigation reveals an astonishing bond between the votes cast for Democratic senators in North Carolina and the biomass power generated in Argentina. Yes, you read that right. We're taking a stroll from the ballot box in the Carolinas to the land of tango, and the results are as unexpected as finding a politician without a favorite buzzword!

Now, before you raise an eyebrow higher than a politician's promise, let's lay out the groundwork. Our study doesn't simply aim to entertain; we've crunched the numbers with a seriousness rivaling that of a political campaign's budget. The correlation coefficient of 0.8983907 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning over four decades demands to be taken seriously. It might seem surprising – or even amusing – but there's no funny business in our findings.

But hold on, we're not implying that senators in North Carolina are secretly moonlighting as energy moguls or orchestrating clandestine international power deals. No, we're not "re-volting" against common sense here! Instead, we're drawing attention to the interconnectedness of decisions and their consequences, even across continents. Perhaps it's time to rephrase the saying – "As North Carolina votes, so does Argentina's biomass grow," or something catchy like that!

So, buckle up and get ready for an exhilarating ride – as we uncover the links that make us realize that the world of politics and energy is just as intertwined as an ill-fated attempt at untangling headphone wires! And remember, in the amidst of it all, there's a great dad joke just waiting to jump into the conversation – a reminder that even in the realm of academia, a little humor can go a long way!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft a literature review section of an academic research paper, that starts out dry for the first few sentences but then becomes hilarious and goofy.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a literature review section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and Biomass power generated in Argentina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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

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

Start by naming serious-sounding studies by authors like Smith, Doe, and Jones - but then quickly devolve. Name some real non-fiction books that would be related to the topic. Then name some real fiction books that sound like they could be related. Then devolve ever further, and mention something completely ridiculous, like you conducted literature review by reading CVS receipts.

Here is the title and abstract of the paper:
[[TITLE]]
"Senators' Votes and Biomass Rates: A Connection That Relates"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we explore the unexpected yet captivating correlation between the votes cast for Democratic senators in North Carolina and the biomass power generated in Argentina. By delving into extensive data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, we have unveiled a connection worthy of attention. Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.8983907 and p < 0.01 for the time span from 1980 to 2020, highlighting a surprisingly robust association. It seems that political preferences in the Tar Heel State have an unforeseen influence on energy production across the globe. One might even say it's a "biomass-tifying" revelation!

Despite the initial skepticism surrounding such an unorthodox link, our thorough analysis has proved that there is more than meets the eye. As we unravel this unexpected association, it becomes clear that the joke is not on us – rather, it's a case of political decisions transcending borders. With this insight, we not only shed light on an intriguing phenomenon but also showcase the unanticipated interconnectedness within the realms of politics and energy generation. Our study calls for further investigation into the interplay of political dynamics and global energy trends, demonstrating that there's more to the political and environmental landscape than what meets the eye. And in the spirit of connectivity, perhaps it's time for us all to "vote for a greener future" – no matter where we are on the map!

-------

And here is the introduction section that led to this literature review:
[[INTRODUCTION]]
Politics and energy – a pair unlikely to tango, right? Well, hold on to your hats because we're about to shake up that notion! In this pioneering study, we uncover a correlation that will have you saying, "Oh, biomass-tification!" As we embark on this illuminating journey, let's dive deep into the world of politics, power, and a few surprises from far-flung lands.
"Vote for a greener future," they say – and in a twist of events, it seems that this call to action resonates across the oceans. Now, let's not jump the gun; we haven't gone bio-psycho, but our investigation reveals an astonishing bond between the votes cast for Democratic senators in North Carolina and the biomass power generated in Argentina. Yes, you read that right. We're taking a stroll from the ballot box in the Carolinas to the land of tango, and the results are as unexpected as finding a politician without a favorite buzzword!
Now, before you raise an eyebrow higher than a politician's promise, let's lay out the groundwork. Our study doesn't simply aim to entertain; we've crunched the numbers with a seriousness rivaling that of a political campaign's budget. The correlation coefficient of 0.8983907 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning over four decades demands to be taken seriously. It might seem surprising – or even amusing – but there's no funny business in our findings.
But hold on, we're not implying that senators in North Carolina are secretly moonlighting as energy moguls or orchestrating clandestine international power deals. No, we're not "re-volting" against common sense here! Instead, we're drawing attention to the interconnectedness of decisions and their consequences, even across continents. Perhaps it's time to rephrase the saying – "As North Carolina votes, so does Argentina's biomass grow," or something catchy like that!
So, buckle up and get ready for an exhilarating ride – as we uncover the links that make us realize that the world of politics and energy is just as intertwined as an ill-fated attempt at untangling headphone wires! And remember, in the amidst of it all, there's a great dad joke just waiting to jump into the conversation – a reminder that even in the realm of academia, a little humor can go a long way!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]



ChatGPT:
[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]

In "Correlation Between Political Preferences and Global Energy Production," Smith et al. bring to light the surprising correlation between Democratic senatorial votes in North Carolina and biomass power generation in Argentina. The authors employ rigorous statistical analysis to demonstrate a robust association, leading to the conclusion that political decisions in a specific region can reverberate within the global energy market. It's almost like a game of political dominoes – one state's choices influencing energy production across the ocean. Now, that's what I call a "biomass-tifying" revelation!

Diving further into the world of energy and politics, Doe and Jones' research in "Energy Dynamics and Political Landscapes" offers a compelling argument for the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate domains. Their findings suggest that political inclinations can have unforeseen implications for energy policies, transcending boundaries in ways that make us rethink the impact of a single vote. It's as if every vote counts – even in a power plant thousands of miles away! Talk about a shocking power play!

In "Argentinian Biomass: A Tale of Power and Politics," Williams explores the intricate relationship between biomass power generation in Argentina and international political dynamics. The author's in-depth analysis of the environmental and political factors influencing biomass production sheds light on just how interconnected the global energy landscape can be. It's like a real-life game of political and environmental chess, with each move shaping the world's energy future. Checkmate, anyone?

Turning to non-fiction works with tangential relevance, "The Energy Revolution" by Greenbaum and "Politics Unplugged" by Watterson offer insightful perspectives on the dynamic interplay between political decisions and global energy trends. These works serve as valuable resources for understanding the broader context within which our study situates itself. After all, what's the point of unraveling cross-continental correlations without a solid understanding of the intricate web of politics and power?

Transitioning to fictional works that evoke thematic parallels, "Power Play" by Electrica Sparks and "The Political Puzzle" by Penny Politiko delve into the captivating world of political intrigue and energy dynamics. While not empirical sources, these works inspire contemplation and creativity – after all, who's to say that real-life correlations can't be as captivating as their fictional counterparts? It's as if the energy dynamics of our findings are straight out of a page-turner!

Lastly, it's worth noting that our literature review extended to unconventional sources to capture the full spectrum of perspectives. From the musings of energy enthusiasts on social media to the introspective narratives of CVS receipts (yes, those long rolls of surprises), our investigation left no stone unturned. In doing so, we unearthed a trove of unexpected insights – because when it comes to uncovering global correlations, you never know where the next "receipt" of wisdom might come from!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the methodology section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the methodology section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and Biomass power generated in Argentina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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]]
"Senators' Votes and Biomass Rates: A Connection That Relates"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we explore the unexpected yet captivating correlation between the votes cast for Democratic senators in North Carolina and the biomass power generated in Argentina. By delving into extensive data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, we have unveiled a connection worthy of attention. Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.8983907 and p < 0.01 for the time span from 1980 to 2020, highlighting a surprisingly robust association. It seems that political preferences in the Tar Heel State have an unforeseen influence on energy production across the globe. One might even say it's a "biomass-tifying" revelation!

Despite the initial skepticism surrounding such an unorthodox link, our thorough analysis has proved that there is more than meets the eye. As we unravel this unexpected association, it becomes clear that the joke is not on us – rather, it's a case of political decisions transcending borders. With this insight, we not only shed light on an intriguing phenomenon but also showcase the unanticipated interconnectedness within the realms of politics and energy generation. Our study calls for further investigation into the interplay of political dynamics and global energy trends, demonstrating that there's more to the political and environmental landscape than what meets the eye. And in the spirit of connectivity, perhaps it's time for us all to "vote for a greener future" – no matter where we are on the map!

[[INTRODUCTION]]
Politics and energy – a pair unlikely to tango, right? Well, hold on to your hats because we're about to shake up that notion! In this pioneering study, we uncover a correlation that will have you saying, "Oh, biomass-tification!" As we embark on this illuminating journey, let's dive deep into the world of politics, power, and a few surprises from far-flung lands.
"Vote for a greener future," they say – and in a twist of events, it seems that this call to action resonates across the oceans. Now, let's not jump the gun; we haven't gone bio-psycho, but our investigation reveals an astonishing bond between the votes cast for Democratic senators in North Carolina and the biomass power generated in Argentina. Yes, you read that right. We're taking a stroll from the ballot box in the Carolinas to the land of tango, and the results are as unexpected as finding a politician without a favorite buzzword!
Now, before you raise an eyebrow higher than a politician's promise, let's lay out the groundwork. Our study doesn't simply aim to entertain; we've crunched the numbers with a seriousness rivaling that of a political campaign's budget. The correlation coefficient of 0.8983907 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning over four decades demands to be taken seriously. It might seem surprising – or even amusing – but there's no funny business in our findings.
But hold on, we're not implying that senators in North Carolina are secretly moonlighting as energy moguls or orchestrating clandestine international power deals. No, we're not "re-volting" against common sense here! Instead, we're drawing attention to the interconnectedness of decisions and their consequences, even across continents. Perhaps it's time to rephrase the saying – "As North Carolina votes, so does Argentina's biomass grow," or something catchy like that!
So, buckle up and get ready for an exhilarating ride – as we uncover the links that make us realize that the world of politics and energy is just as intertwined as an ill-fated attempt at untangling headphone wires! And remember, in the amidst of it all, there's a great dad joke just waiting to jump into the conversation – a reminder that even in the realm of academia, a little humor can go a long way!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[METHODOLOGY]]



ChatGPT:

[[METHODOLOGY]]

To untangle and illuminate the unexpected connection between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and Biomass power generated in Argentina, we employed an intricate yet lighthearted research methodology that involved data collection and analysis that could make even the most serious scholars crack a smile. Picture this: we harnessed the power of internet sleuthing and strategic data selection, utilizing the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and Energy Information Administration as our primary sources. It was like deciphering a political puzzle using the scientific equivalent of a magnifying glass and a Sherlock Holmes hat – both brains and humor were essential for this adventure!

First off, we engaged in data mining techniques to extract information dating back to 1980, creating a vast dataset that rivaled the impressive intricacy of a bipartisan debate – with significantly fewer interruptions. We then meticulously combed through the data, ensuring that our selection process was as rigorous as a politician's self-assurances during a campaign speech. It was all hands on deck, carefully sifting through spreadsheets and charts in a quest to uncover the golden "biomass-tified" thread weaving through the fabric of political and energy landscapes.

Now, here's where things take an unexpected turn, much like a plot twist in a political drama. Our data analysis was powered by an algorithm so complex that it could rival the intricacies of a political negotiation – imagine a Rubik's Cube of statistics, with each layer revealing a tale more compelling than an election night cliffhanger! Using a combination of statistical software and a touch of wit, we delved into intricate regression analyses and correlation tests, all while keeping an eye out for any statistical anomalies that were as surprising as discovering a candidate who doesn't know how to wave and smile simultaneously.

But wait, there's more! In a move that would make even the most daring political commentator blush, we didn't stop there. We also incorporated multivariate analyses to consider potential confounding variables and interactions, ensuring that our findings were as robust as a well-crafted argument in a parliamentary debate. It was like conducting a symphony of statistical analyses, with each note adding depth and complexity to our understanding of the interplay between political preferences and far-reaching energy dynamics. And amidst it all, we never lost sight of the fact that even in the world of academia, a little levity and humor can be the perfect garnish on an otherwise serious research endeavor.


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the results section of an academic research paper. You speak in the past tense (you found...).
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the results section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and Biomass power generated in Argentina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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 0.8983907, r-squared of 0.8071059, 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]]
"Senators' Votes and Biomass Rates: A Connection That Relates"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we explore the unexpected yet captivating correlation between the votes cast for Democratic senators in North Carolina and the biomass power generated in Argentina. By delving into extensive data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, we have unveiled a connection worthy of attention. Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.8983907 and p < 0.01 for the time span from 1980 to 2020, highlighting a surprisingly robust association. It seems that political preferences in the Tar Heel State have an unforeseen influence on energy production across the globe. One might even say it's a "biomass-tifying" revelation!

Despite the initial skepticism surrounding such an unorthodox link, our thorough analysis has proved that there is more than meets the eye. As we unravel this unexpected association, it becomes clear that the joke is not on us – rather, it's a case of political decisions transcending borders. With this insight, we not only shed light on an intriguing phenomenon but also showcase the unanticipated interconnectedness within the realms of politics and energy generation. Our study calls for further investigation into the interplay of political dynamics and global energy trends, demonstrating that there's more to the political and environmental landscape than what meets the eye. And in the spirit of connectivity, perhaps it's time for us all to "vote for a greener future" – no matter where we are on the map!

-------

And here is the methodology section that led to this result:
[[METHODOLOGY]]
Politics and energy – a pair unlikely to tango, right? Well, hold on to your hats because we're about to shake up that notion! In this pioneering study, we uncover a correlation that will have you saying, "Oh, biomass-tification!" As we embark on this illuminating journey, let's dive deep into the world of politics, power, and a few surprises from far-flung lands.
"Vote for a greener future," they say – and in a twist of events, it seems that this call to action resonates across the oceans. Now, let's not jump the gun; we haven't gone bio-psycho, but our investigation reveals an astonishing bond between the votes cast for Democratic senators in North Carolina and the biomass power generated in Argentina. Yes, you read that right. We're taking a stroll from the ballot box in the Carolinas to the land of tango, and the results are as unexpected as finding a politician without a favorite buzzword!
Now, before you raise an eyebrow higher than a politician's promise, let's lay out the groundwork. Our study doesn't simply aim to entertain; we've crunched the numbers with a seriousness rivaling that of a political campaign's budget. The correlation coefficient of 0.8983907 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning over four decades demands to be taken seriously. It might seem surprising – or even amusing – but there's no funny business in our findings.
But hold on, we're not implying that senators in North Carolina are secretly moonlighting as energy moguls or orchestrating clandestine international power deals. No, we're not "re-volting" against common sense here! Instead, we're drawing attention to the interconnectedness of decisions and their consequences, even across continents. Perhaps it's time to rephrase the saying – "As North Carolina votes, so does Argentina's biomass grow," or something catchy like that!
So, buckle up and get ready for an exhilarating ride – as we uncover the links that make us realize that the world of politics and energy is just as intertwined as an ill-fated attempt at untangling headphone wires! And remember, in the amidst of it all, there's a great dad joke just waiting to jump into the conversation – a reminder that even in the realm of academia, a little humor can go a long way!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[RESULTS]]



ChatGPT:

[[RESULTS]]

The statistical analysis of the data gathered from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration revealed a startling correlation between the votes for Democratic senators in North Carolina and the biomass power generated in Argentina. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8983907, an r-squared of 0.8071059, and p < 0.01, the association between these seemingly disconnected variables proved to be far from coincidental. This finding certainly gives new meaning to the phrase "voting with your power bill in mind," doesn't it?

Focusing on the time period from 1980 to 2020, our analysis demonstrated a remarkably robust relationship between political preferences in North Carolina and the energy landscape in Argentina. The scatterplot in Fig. 1 vividly illustrates the strong correlation, providing compelling visual evidence to support our findings. No doubt, this unexpected connection has us contemplating just how far-reaching the influence of political decisions can be, even in the realm of energy production. It seems that energies of a different kind are at play here – pun intended!

In light of these results, it's evident that the impact of political choices in one geographical region can extend beyond national borders and influence energy dynamics in far-off lands. Who would have thought that a vote in the American South could have implications for energy generation in the land of the tango? It appears that the saying "vote for a greener future" may hold more weight – and an international twist – than previously assumed. This revelation adds a whole new dimension to the concept of global political and environmental interconnectedness – talk about a political power play!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of an academic research paper.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up the discussion section of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and Biomass power generated in Argentina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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]]
"Senators' Votes and Biomass Rates: A Connection That Relates"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we explore the unexpected yet captivating correlation between the votes cast for Democratic senators in North Carolina and the biomass power generated in Argentina. By delving into extensive data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, we have unveiled a connection worthy of attention. Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.8983907 and p < 0.01 for the time span from 1980 to 2020, highlighting a surprisingly robust association. It seems that political preferences in the Tar Heel State have an unforeseen influence on energy production across the globe. One might even say it's a "biomass-tifying" revelation!

Despite the initial skepticism surrounding such an unorthodox link, our thorough analysis has proved that there is more than meets the eye. As we unravel this unexpected association, it becomes clear that the joke is not on us – rather, it's a case of political decisions transcending borders. With this insight, we not only shed light on an intriguing phenomenon but also showcase the unanticipated interconnectedness within the realms of politics and energy generation. Our study calls for further investigation into the interplay of political dynamics and global energy trends, demonstrating that there's more to the political and environmental landscape than what meets the eye. And in the spirit of connectivity, perhaps it's time for us all to "vote for a greener future" – no matter where we are on the map!

[[LITERATURE REVIEW]]
In "Correlation Between Political Preferences and Global Energy Production," Smith et al. bring to light the surprising correlation between Democratic senatorial votes in North Carolina and biomass power generation in Argentina. The authors employ rigorous statistical analysis to demonstrate a robust association, leading to the conclusion that political decisions in a specific region can reverberate within the global energy market. It's almost like a game of political dominoes – one state's choices influencing energy production across the ocean. Now, that's what I call a "biomass-tifying" revelation!
Diving further into the world of energy and politics, Doe and Jones' research in "Energy Dynamics and Political Landscapes" offers a compelling argument for the interconnectedness of seemingly disparate domains. Their findings suggest that political inclinations can have unforeseen implications for energy policies, transcending boundaries in ways that make us rethink the impact of a single vote. It's as if every vote counts – even in a power plant thousands of miles away! Talk about a shocking power play!
In "Argentinian Biomass: A Tale of Power and Politics," Williams explores the intricate relationship between biomass power generation in Argentina and international political dynamics. The author's in-depth analysis of the environmental and political factors influencing biomass production sheds light on just how interconnected the global energy landscape can be. It's like a real-life game of political and environmental chess, with each move shaping the world's energy future. Checkmate, anyone?
Turning to non-fiction works with tangential relevance, "The Energy Revolution" by Greenbaum and "Politics Unplugged" by Watterson offer insightful perspectives on the dynamic interplay between political decisions and global energy trends. These works serve as valuable resources for understanding the broader context within which our study situates itself. After all, what's the point of unraveling cross-continental correlations without a solid understanding of the intricate web of politics and power?
Transitioning to fictional works that evoke thematic parallels, "Power Play" by Electrica Sparks and "The Political Puzzle" by Penny Politiko delve into the captivating world of political intrigue and energy dynamics. While not empirical sources, these works inspire contemplation and creativity – after all, who's to say that real-life correlations can't be as captivating as their fictional counterparts? It's as if the energy dynamics of our findings are straight out of a page-turner!
Lastly, it's worth noting that our literature review extended to unconventional sources to capture the full spectrum of perspectives. From the musings of energy enthusiasts on social media to the introspective narratives of CVS receipts (yes, those long rolls of surprises), our investigation left no stone unturned. In doing so, we unearthed a trove of unexpected insights – because when it comes to uncovering global correlations, you never know where the next "receipt" of wisdom might come from!

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis of the data gathered from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration revealed a startling correlation between the votes for Democratic senators in North Carolina and the biomass power generated in Argentina. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8983907, an r-squared of 0.8071059, and p < 0.01, the association between these seemingly disconnected variables proved to be far from coincidental. This finding certainly gives new meaning to the phrase "voting with your power bill in mind," doesn't it?
Focusing on the time period from 1980 to 2020, our analysis demonstrated a remarkably robust relationship between political preferences in North Carolina and the energy landscape in Argentina. The scatterplot in Fig. 1 vividly illustrates the strong correlation, providing compelling visual evidence to support our findings. No doubt, this unexpected connection has us contemplating just how far-reaching the influence of political decisions can be, even in the realm of energy production. It seems that energies of a different kind are at play here – pun intended!
In light of these results, it's evident that the impact of political choices in one geographical region can extend beyond national borders and influence energy dynamics in far-off lands. Who would have thought that a vote in the American South could have implications for energy generation in the land of the tango? It appears that the saying "vote for a greener future" may hold more weight – and an international twist – than previously assumed. This revelation adds a whole new dimension to the concept of global political and environmental interconnectedness – talk about a political power play!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[DISCUSSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[DISCUSSION]]

Our findings reveal a striking correlation between Democrat votes for senators in North Carolina and biomass power generated in Argentina, supporting previous research that highlighted the unexpected interconnectedness between political decisions and global energy production. The robust correlation coefficient of 0.8983907 and p < 0.01 observed in our study aligns with the conclusions drawn by Smith et al., Doe and Jones, and Williams, underscoring the significant influence of political dynamics on the energy landscape. It's clear that when it comes to shaping the world of energy, political preferences can wield a surprising amount of power – almost like the bi-partisan biomass brigade marching across international borders!

The strong correlation between seemingly unrelated variables, spanning from 1980 to 2020, lends further credence to the notion put forth by Smith et al. that a single state's choices can indeed reverberate within the global energy market. Our study has not only affirmed the unexpected influence of political decisions on energy production but also emphasized the need for a more holistic understanding of the far-reaching impact of electoral preferences. It appears that the political domino effect is not just a game – it's a real phenomenon, and the stakes are high when it comes to global energy dynamics. Who knew that voting in North Carolina could have such "biomass-tifying" implications across the Atlantic?

Upon juxtaposing our results with the insights from Greenbaum, Watterson, Electrica Sparks, and Penny Politiko, it becomes apparent that our study resonates with the multifaceted interplay of political decisions and global energy trends as highlighted in these works. In addition, our investigation into unconventional sources, including the musings of energy enthusiasts on social media and introspective narratives of CVS receipts, reinforces the notion that unexpected insights can be gleaned from diverse platforms. Indeed, our findings embody the captivating and unpredictable nature of global correlations, akin to the twists and turns of a thrilling page-turner. It's as if our research has added a new chapter to the captivating narrative of political intrigue and global energy dynamics!

In sum, our study presents an unexpected yet compelling case for the interconnectedness of political preferences in North Carolina and biomass power generation in Argentina. It calls for a reevaluation of the international implications of local electoral choices and highlights the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the far-reaching influence of political decisions on the global energy landscape. As we continue to unravel the intricacies of this captivating correlation, perhaps it's time to heed the call for a "greener future" – with a touch of international flavor, courtesy of our "biomass-tifying" findings!


Model: gpt-3.5-turbo-1106
System prompt: You are a researcher writing an academic paper.You draft the discussion section of goofy academic research papers that sounds like it belongs based on the title and abstract provided.
User prompt:
Pretend you are an academic researcher. Your writing sounds like it belongs in a medical or economics journal. However, you frequently crack jokes, make puns, or add unexpected twists in your writing.

Please make up a short conclusion of an academic research paper presenting the findings of the connection between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and Biomass power generated in Argentina. You can't resist a good dad joke. Add a relevant dad joke related to the content every couple of sentences.

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]]
"Senators' Votes and Biomass Rates: A Connection That Relates"

[[ABSTRACT]]
In this research paper, we explore the unexpected yet captivating correlation between the votes cast for Democratic senators in North Carolina and the biomass power generated in Argentina. By delving into extensive data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, we have unveiled a connection worthy of attention. Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.8983907 and p < 0.01 for the time span from 1980 to 2020, highlighting a surprisingly robust association. It seems that political preferences in the Tar Heel State have an unforeseen influence on energy production across the globe. One might even say it's a "biomass-tifying" revelation!

Despite the initial skepticism surrounding such an unorthodox link, our thorough analysis has proved that there is more than meets the eye. As we unravel this unexpected association, it becomes clear that the joke is not on us – rather, it's a case of political decisions transcending borders. With this insight, we not only shed light on an intriguing phenomenon but also showcase the unanticipated interconnectedness within the realms of politics and energy generation. Our study calls for further investigation into the interplay of political dynamics and global energy trends, demonstrating that there's more to the political and environmental landscape than what meets the eye. And in the spirit of connectivity, perhaps it's time for us all to "vote for a greener future" – no matter where we are on the map!

[[INTRDUCTION]]
Politics and energy – a pair unlikely to tango, right? Well, hold on to your hats because we're about to shake up that notion! In this pioneering study, we uncover a correlation that will have you saying, "Oh, biomass-tification!" As we embark on this illuminating journey, let's dive deep into the world of politics, power, and a few surprises from far-flung lands.
"Vote for a greener future," they say – and in a twist of events, it seems that this call to action resonates across the oceans. Now, let's not jump the gun; we haven't gone bio-psycho, but our investigation reveals an astonishing bond between the votes cast for Democratic senators in North Carolina and the biomass power generated in Argentina. Yes, you read that right. We're taking a stroll from the ballot box in the Carolinas to the land of tango, and the results are as unexpected as finding a politician without a favorite buzzword!
Now, before you raise an eyebrow higher than a politician's promise, let's lay out the groundwork. Our study doesn't simply aim to entertain; we've crunched the numbers with a seriousness rivaling that of a political campaign's budget. The correlation coefficient of 0.8983907 and p < 0.01 for the period spanning over four decades demands to be taken seriously. It might seem surprising – or even amusing – but there's no funny business in our findings.
But hold on, we're not implying that senators in North Carolina are secretly moonlighting as energy moguls or orchestrating clandestine international power deals. No, we're not "re-volting" against common sense here! Instead, we're drawing attention to the interconnectedness of decisions and their consequences, even across continents. Perhaps it's time to rephrase the saying – "As North Carolina votes, so does Argentina's biomass grow," or something catchy like that!
So, buckle up and get ready for an exhilarating ride – as we uncover the links that make us realize that the world of politics and energy is just as intertwined as an ill-fated attempt at untangling headphone wires! And remember, in the amidst of it all, there's a great dad joke just waiting to jump into the conversation – a reminder that even in the realm of academia, a little humor can go a long way!

[[RESULTS]]
The statistical analysis of the data gathered from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration revealed a startling correlation between the votes for Democratic senators in North Carolina and the biomass power generated in Argentina. With a correlation coefficient of 0.8983907, an r-squared of 0.8071059, and p < 0.01, the association between these seemingly disconnected variables proved to be far from coincidental. This finding certainly gives new meaning to the phrase "voting with your power bill in mind," doesn't it?
Focusing on the time period from 1980 to 2020, our analysis demonstrated a remarkably robust relationship between political preferences in North Carolina and the energy landscape in Argentina. The scatterplot in Fig. 1 vividly illustrates the strong correlation, providing compelling visual evidence to support our findings. No doubt, this unexpected connection has us contemplating just how far-reaching the influence of political decisions can be, even in the realm of energy production. It seems that energies of a different kind are at play here – pun intended!
In light of these results, it's evident that the impact of political choices in one geographical region can extend beyond national borders and influence energy dynamics in far-off lands. Who would have thought that a vote in the American South could have implications for energy generation in the land of the tango? It appears that the saying "vote for a greener future" may hold more weight – and an international twist – than previously assumed. This revelation adds a whole new dimension to the concept of global political and environmental interconnectedness – talk about a political power play!

-------

Your response should start like this:

[[CONCLUSION]]



ChatGPT:

[[CONCLUSION]]

As we wrap up our fascinating findings, it's clear that the correlation we've uncovered between Democrat votes for Senators in North Carolina and Biomass power generated in Argentina has left us pleasantly "shocked and appalled" - pun intended, of course. The robust relationship with a correlation coefficient of 0.8983907 and p < 0.01 serves as a firm reminder that there's more to political decisions than meets the eye. It seems that the political landscape and energy generation are indeed engaged in a tango of their own, and we're merely the amused spectators cheering from the sidelines – or should we say, from the ballot box to the power grid!

As we ponder the unexpected interplay between political dynamics and global energy trends, it's hard not to crack a smile and appreciate the quirky interconnectedness of it all. Maybe next time someone mentions "voting for a greener future," we can't help but add, "and powering up Argentine biomass while we're at it!" – now that's a dad joke that deserves all the electoral approval it can get.

In light of our groundbreaking revelation, we assert that further research into this specific correlation is unnecessary – we've unraveled the "seedy" truth behind the connection between political votes in North Carolina and energy production in Argentina. It's time to set our sights on new frontiers of perplexing associations, leaving this particular duo to dance their way into the annals of unexpected correlations. And in the spirit of connectivity, let's remember that there's always room for a good dad joke – in academia and beyond!


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 Senators' Votes and Biomass Rates: A Connection That Relates. Respond only with the name of a fictional academic journal.

ChatGPT:

The Journal of Political Ecology and Environmental Economics


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 Senators' Votes and Biomass Rates: A Connection That Relates. Respond only with the name of a fictional organization.

ChatGPT:

The Society for Congressional Eco-Politics 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 Senators' Votes and Biomass Rates: A Connection That Relates with an abstract of In this research paper, we explore the unexpected yet captivating correlation between the votes cast for Democratic senators in North Carolina and the biomass power generated in Argentina. By delving into extensive data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, Harvard Dataverse, and the Energy Information Administration, we have unveiled a connection worthy of attention. Our findings reveal a correlation coefficient of 0.8983907 and p < 0.01 for the time span from 1980 to 2020, highlighting a surprisingly robust association. It seems that political preferences in the Tar Heel State have an unforeseen influence on energy production across the globe. One might even say it's a "biomass-tifying" revelation!
Despite the initial skepticism surrounding such an unorthodox link, our thorough analysis has proved that there is more than meets the eye. As we unravel this unexpected association, it becomes clear that the joke is not on us – rather, it's a case of political decisions transcending borders. With this insight, we not only shed light on an intriguing phenomenon but also showcase the unanticipated interconnectedness within the realms of politics and energy generation. Our study calls for further investigation into the interplay of political dynamics and global energy trends, demonstrating that there's more to the political and environmental landscape than what meets the eye. And in the spirit of connectivity, perhaps it's time for us all to "vote for a greener future" – no matter where we are on the map!

ChatGPT:

"Democratic senators North Carolina voting behavior," "biomass power production Argentina," "MIT Election Data Science Lab," "Harvard Dataverse," "Energy Information Administration," "correlation coefficient political preferences energy production," "political dynamics global energy trends," "interconnectedness politics energy generation," "political decisions influence energy production"

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

Biomass power generated in Argentina
Detailed data title: Total biomass power generated in Argentina in billion kWh
Source: Energy Information Administration
See what else correlates with Biomass power generated in Argentina

Correlation r = 0.8983907 (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 = 0.8071059 (Coefficient of determination)
This means 80.7% of the change in the one variable (i.e., Biomass power generated in Argentina) is predictable based on the change in the other (i.e., Votes for Democratic Senators in North Carolina) over the 14 years from 1980 through 2020.

p < 0.01, which is statistically significant(Null hypothesis significance test)
The p-value is 1.3E-5. 0.0000127232867376428120000000
The p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme. More specifically the p-value is a measure of how probable it is that we would randomly find a result this extreme if we had only tested one pair of variables one time.

But I am a p-villain. I absolutely did not test only one pair of variables one time. I correlated hundreds of millions of pairs of variables. I threw boatloads of data into an industrial-sized blender to find this correlation.

Who is going to stop me? p-value reporting doesn't require me to report how many calculations I had to go through in order to find a low p-value!
On average, you will find a correaltion as strong as 0.9 in 0.0013% of random cases. Said differently, if you correlated 78,596 random variables You don't actually need 78 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 13 degrees of freedom, Degrees of freedom is a measure of how many free components we are testing. In this case it is 13 because we have two variables measured over a period of 14 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.

[ 0.7, 0.97 ] 95% correlation confidence interval (using the Fisher z-transformation)
The confidence interval is an estimate the range of the value of the correlation coefficient, using the correlation itself as an input. The values are meant to be the low and high end of the correlation coefficient with 95% confidence.

This one is a bit more complciated than the other calculations, but I include it because many people have been pushing for confidence intervals instead of p-value calculations (for example: NEJM. However, if you are dredging data, you can reliably find yourself in the 5%. That's my goal!


All values for the years included above: If I were being very sneaky, I could trim years from the beginning or end of the datasets to increase the correlation on some pairs of variables. I don't do that because there are already plenty of correlations in my database without monkeying with the years.

Still, sometimes one of the variables has more years of data available than the other. This page only shows the overlapping years. To see all the years, click on "See what else correlates with..." link above.
19801984198619901992199619982002200420082010201420162020
Votes for Democratic Senators in North Carolina (Total votes)88765310704907809679815731194020117388010292401047980163253022493101145070137765021281602569960
Biomass power generated in Argentina (Billion kWh)0.10.10.10.10.10.350.470.871.21.5761.1651.1731.5322.607




Why this works

  1. Data dredging: I have 25,153 variables in my database. I compare all these variables against each other to find ones that randomly match up. That's 632,673,409 correlation calculations! This is called “data dredging.” Instead of starting with a hypothesis and testing it, I instead abused the data to see what correlations shake out. It’s a dangerous way to go about analysis, because any sufficiently large dataset will yield strong correlations completely at random.
  2. Lack of causal connection: There is probably Because these pages are automatically generated, it's possible that the two variables you are viewing are in fact causually related. I take steps to prevent the obvious ones from showing on the site (I don't let data about the weather in one city correlate with the weather in a neighboring city, for example), but sometimes they still pop up. If they are related, cool! You found a loophole.
    no direct connection between these variables, despite what the AI says above. This is exacerbated by the fact that I used "Years" as the base variable. Lots of things happen in a year that are not related to each other! Most studies would use something like "one person" in stead of "one year" to be the "thing" studied.
  3. Observations not independent: For many variables, sequential years are not independent of each other. If a population of people is continuously doing something every day, there is no reason to think they would suddenly change how they are doing that thing on January 1. A simple Personally I don't find any p-value calculation to be 'simple,' but you know what I mean.
    p-value calculation does not take this into account, so mathematically it appears less probable than it really is.
  4. Confounding variable: 2020 is particularly different from the other years on this graph. Confounding variables (like global pandemics) will cause two variables to look connected when in fact a "sneaky third" variable is influencing both of them behind the scenes.




Try it yourself

You can calculate the values on this page on your own! Try running the Python code to see the calculation results. Step 1: Download and install Python on your computer.

Step 2: Open a plaintext editor like Notepad and paste the code below into it.

Step 3: Save the file as "calculate_correlation.py" in a place you will remember, like your desktop. Copy the file location to your clipboard. On Windows, you can right-click the file and click "Properties," and then copy what comes after "Location:" As an example, on my computer the location is "C:\Users\tyler\Desktop"

Step 4: Open a command line window. For example, by pressing start and typing "cmd" and them pressing enter.

Step 5: Install the required modules by typing "pip install numpy", then pressing enter, then typing "pip install scipy", then pressing enter.

Step 6: Navigate to the location where you saved the Python file by using the "cd" command. For example, I would type "cd C:\Users\tyler\Desktop" and push enter.

Step 7: Run the Python script by typing "python calculate_correlation.py"

If you run into any issues, I suggest asking ChatGPT to walk you through installing Python and running the code below on your system. Try this question:

"Walk me through installing Python on my computer to run a script that uses scipy and numpy. Go step-by-step and ask me to confirm before moving on. Start by asking me questions about my operating system so that you know how to proceed. Assume I want the simplest installation with the latest version of Python and that I do not currently have any of the necessary elements installed. Remember to only give me one step per response and confirm I have done it before proceeding."


# These modules make it easier to perform the calculation
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

# We'll define a function that we can call to return the correlation calculations
def calculate_correlation(array1, array2):

    # Calculate Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value
    correlation, p_value = stats.pearsonr(array1, array2)

    # Calculate R-squared as the square of the correlation coefficient
    r_squared = correlation**2

    return correlation, r_squared, p_value

# These are the arrays for the variables shown on this page, but you can modify them to be any two sets of numbers
array_1 = np.array([887653,1070490,780967,981573,1194020,1173880,1029240,1047980,1632530,2249310,1145070,1377650,2128160,2569960,])
array_2 = np.array([0.1,0.1,0.1,0.1,0.1,0.35,0.47,0.87,1.2,1.576,1.165,1.173,1.532,2.607,])
array_1_name = "Votes for Democratic Senators in North Carolina"
array_2_name = "Biomass power generated in Argentina"

# Perform the calculation
print(f"Calculating the correlation between {array_1_name} and {array_2_name}...")
correlation, r_squared, p_value = calculate_correlation(array_1, array_2)

# Print the results
print("Correlation Coefficient:", correlation)
print("R-squared:", r_squared)
print("P-value:", p_value)



Reuseable content

You may re-use the images on this page for any purpose, even commercial purposes, without asking for permission. The only requirement is that you attribute Tyler Vigen. Attribution can take many different forms. If you leave the "tylervigen.com" link in the image, that satisfies it just fine. If you remove it and move it to a footnote, that's fine too. You can also just write "Charts courtesy of Tyler Vigen" at the bottom of an article.

You do not need to attribute "the spurious correlations website," and you don't even need to link here if you don't want to. I don't gain anything from pageviews. There are no ads on this site, there is nothing for sale, and I am not for hire.

For the record, I am just one person. Tyler Vigen, he/him/his. I do have degrees, but they should not go after my name unless you want to annoy my wife. If that is your goal, then go ahead and cite me as "Tyler Vigen, A.A. A.A.S. B.A. J.D." Otherwise it is just "Tyler Vigen."

When spoken, my last name is pronounced "vegan," like I don't eat meat.

Full license details.
For more on re-use permissions, or to get a signed release form, see tylervigen.com/permission.

Download images for these variables:


View another random correlation

How fun was this correlation?

You're the rating guru we've been waiting for!


Correlation ID: 5182 · Black Variable ID: 26290 · Red Variable ID: 23464
about · subscribe · emailme@tylervigen.com · twitter

CC BY 4.0