Why do the scientific questions attract so few answers?

Because they are more technical in nature. When I ask some, the responses I get are usually rants about deniers rather than actually answering the question.

In that case, it was more the particular asker than the topic or question. It's largely a waste of time to provide him with a detailed explanation. So I read questions from him and think "Yeah, that's interesting why that is, I could explain that, but it will be messy because it's complicated and you have to work to understand it." So I shrug and move on because why waste the time explaining things to someone who would rather get his explanations from Willis Eschenbach and considers Richard Lindzen and expert in anything. YMMV

Many scientists are not very good at communicating their subject to the general public. They are expert in science, not communication. Of course they do communicate but with each other, where it is easier. The scientific papers they produce are often badly written and incapable of being understood except by fellow scientists who know what the writer is trying to say.

Yahoo answers is generally not viewed as a place for scientific discussions so most scientists do not use it. However, there are many areas of science that have implications for public policy and need to be communicated to the public so that the democratic processes can play their part. Yahoo answers is a place where the public can ask questions about those matters and hopefully some people who understand the scientific papers can translate them into language that the public can understand.

Rather than speculate about the motives of others, I will only state my considerations.

1. Many of the interesting scientific questions have already been asked and answered. I am more likely to answer a novel topic than a topic that has been discussed previously.

2. Providing a reasonable answer to a scientific question takes more effort than giving an opinion. I might think time is better spent on another topic that pays the rent.

3. I am unlikely to answer a question from a party focused on politics rather than science The history and credibility of the questioner is a factor.

4. I am lazy. If someone else has already posted a good answer I will simply give a thumbs up and move on. If some detail is missed in an otherwise strong answer, I will simply add the detail.

I like to offer up what I know. Basically I know that science has to do with data. If for instance the US Navy after over fifty years of running nuclear submarines under the artic ice report that the ice is 1/3 to 1/2 thinner than it was in the late 1950 when the first nuclear subs made the first in a series of under the ice voyages I really have to take them at their word. When the Russian Navy backs up what the US Navy has reported it's difficult to deny that data. When in more recent times satellite based readings of artic ice thickness backs up both the Russian AND the US Navy I'm going to have say that I'm a believer.

The ice is melting, the tundra is melting, the glaciers are melting and because of all of this melting ice plus thermal expansion the oceans actually ARE rising. ALL of this is associated with mega tons of man made CO2 in our paper thin atmosphere. That's what the observations, the data, the science and the physics of both heat and atmosphere tell us. Retained atmospheric heat moves rapidly to seawater and ice. The atmosphere doesn't 'warm' very much because the heat energy moves to colder material. If you don't 'believe' any of the above.... you have a problem!

I think d/dx+... gives a very good answer. I saw the question by Ottawa Mike, which was multi-part, complicated, and would have required current research (perhaps research that no one has yet done) or speculation. It was something that could have been a thesis topic for a graduate student. Although I did have knowledge of that area, it wasn't my research area, so it would have been easy to say something that is incorrect, and I REALLY REALLY don't like to make wrong assertions.

Also, I should say that in the past I have answered Mike's multi-part science questions, and found that he does not really care much about the answers--often he will change the topic of his questions completely after you've answered his original question, and it becomes clear that he is not interested in the science, he is only trying score points for the denial side.

But you're correct that I don't see many answers to science questions coming from the denial camp, even though it includes at least person who refers to himself as a "true scientist."

The US has fallen behind about 2 dozen other countries in science education.

Too few understand how dangerous that actually is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLdwIQPC_oc

The reason is because when you bug some people about answers they depend on speculation rather than fact. Fact: when you stick your finger in a light socket that has power running to it you get shocked. If you don't believe it, then try it. Now, because people don't put out the effort to prove exactly what they are saying, they may not be sure if what they are saying is true or factual, so therefore they get angry and start spewing false "facts" and figures to convince others. Sad thing is, that works too many times. Logic and honest fact finding will give proveable results.

I assume your talking about yahoo answers, in that case most people don't know anything about the subject and are to lazy to even google it let alone find a trust worthy website so they just ignore.

Isnt it because most scientifically literate participants on the subject have been banned from Yahoo Answers