Why am I learning more from first time posters then top contributors?

Question

I've actually had the honor of seeing non bias science being posted in regards to AGW &GW.I'm both disappointed and amazed.

Answer 1

More often than not the common sense answer is the best or right answer.  Global warming is soo complicated the whole thing can be reformulated to fit the answers someone is looking for.

Answer 2

Very few people are subject matter experts in more than a few areas.  I know chemistry beyond college courses to include real-work experience.  One "top contributor" flat out answered a chemistry question incorrectly.

Answer 3

I believe the present term would be "anything for a buck".  RSVP

Answer 4

OK sounds good to me.

Answer 5

For the same reason that there is more water in first-order streams (the ones at the start of a stream system) than fifth-order streams. There are a lot more of them.

Answer 6

some people specialize in certain subjects

Answer 7

Several top contributers I have noticed often copy and paste stock answers instead of actually looking at the question and trying to answer them.  

I was sad too, as several top contributors have given very strange answers that don't fit the question or link a former yahoo answer session which really doesn't help people much when they are looking for real answers.  

I also think if someone doesn't come here often they are more inclined to give answers that they know are correct or feel strongly about which often leads to more thought being put into their statements.

Where is the non-biased science coming from and by whom.  I thought I would answer your questions with another question? :-)

Answer 8

Top contributors have an agenda.  That's my own opinion.

I did learn something recently and I'll always keep it in mind.  Al Gore has donated some of his movie money and all of his Noble money to charities.  So, I'll give him credit for that.

Answer 9

top contributors have been sitting there answering questions for so long that they don't have any current information left in their heads.

Answer 10

"top contributor" designation carries no weight with me.

Answer 11

Another point about your question.  Have you heard the word Clintonesque?  The best definition I know of is - Someone that falsely accuses the opposition of what they are guilty of.

If you look back in this forum you will see the 'top contributors' which are 'warmers' accusing skeptics of being 'paid' by big oil or whatever.  

I immediately thought of clintonesque,  where they are paid by very affluent groups like Sierra Club or Greenpeace that actively promote AGW  to spew effluent.