The happy possibility…
Maybe the GM is not antagonizing the players, and, instead, encouraging the players to take action. Bear with me here! While it may seem paralyzing not to know the outcome of actions before taking those actions, that perspective is sometimes viewed by a GM as more realistic than an absolutely predictable outcome: "In life—even in the fictional life of a role-playing game protagonist—," such a GM reasons, "anything can happen, and every task—no matter how mundane or routine—carries with it the possibility of death… or, at least, entails some risk. But, as an adventurer, a PC shouldn't worry so much about those risks."
So, for example, when a player that asks the GM Can I sneak up on the guard? the action-oriented GM's response of Not if lightning strikes and kills you first should not be seen as a warning that the player made a mistake when, before the assault on the compound, he failed to ascertain the weather! Instead, the statement should be interpreted as the GM encouraging players to stop waffling and get on with it already!
While I think it would be better were the GM to come right out and say that he prefers players to act instead of ask so as to put everyone at ease, some GMs—especially inexperienced GMs—haven't yet fully grasped their own playstyles and may be unable to articulate exactly why they're doing what they're doing. But now you can broach the subject and find out if this—encouraging action not caution—is your GM's goal with his unusual answers to seemingly simple questions.
I should point out that the GM's answers aren't bad or wrong but simply might be sending the wrong message. If the GM's goal is to encourage action rather than planning, that action should be encouraged directly by saying Here's what you can do to find out instead of implying that players should worry about something else entirely.
For example, when a player asks Can I silently open that locker? saying Yes… if the locker doesn't have hidden alarm leads players to believe they should look for alarms rather than right away attempt to open the locker, and, by saying that, the GM has (perhaps inadvertently) added an extra step to every door in the campaign. As an alternative, a response like There's no way to know until you try or In your experience, most lockers open pretty quietly, but would you like to take a few minutes to examine the locker carefully to try to determine if it's somehow special? emphasizes instead either that the question's futile, there's no action that can be taken to mitigate consequences, and the players should be just doing stuff or the notion that some action must be taken first if consequences are to be minimized. Either way works, but the GM should be aware that offering a seeming non sequitur like In some places you need to check your shoes for scorpions before putting them on to What should I be wary of when I'm taking a leak? slows the game rather than speeds it up. (Except in scorpion-themed campaigns or roll-for-shoes, of course.)
In short, I suggest talking to the GM and see what kind of game he's trying to run, or, if that's too uncomfortable, stop asking questions, have your PC just do stuff, and see what happens. I suspect your PC will find no scorpions in his shoes.
…And the alternative
But it's also possible that your inexperienced GM may be on the way to becoming a totally different kind of GM. Instead of encouraging action, he could be like the GM Psycho Dave from role-playing game storyteller and game designer Al Bruno III's "A Night at the Inn, a Day at the Racists"1 wherein during a role-playing session the following exchange occurs:
AB3: I stop the wagon in front of the Inn.
Psycho Dave (the GM): Roll for it.
AB3: This is getting a little out of hand now.
Psycho Dave: Roll for it.
AB3: I need to roll to stop the… wagon?
Psycho Dave: You're the one that said that you were just all of a sudden stopping the wagon. Ever heard of slowing down before you stop?
AB3: I didn't think I had to be that specific. Okay, I slow the wagon down and—
Psycho Dave: Too late. You said it. Roll to see if you can stop the wagon without crashing, or do you want to… whine some more?
AB3: [Rolling.] Crap.
Psycho Dave: Okay, the cart flips over. Everyone else make a save versus death. Yes, you too Larry.
AB3 (V.O): As you can see I soon realized that Psycho Dave ran a game in roughly the same way that Warwick Davis in the film Leprechaun granted wishes. Everything you said your character did was scrutinized for some way to screw you over and the dice ruled all. He was the only guy I know who used a random monster encounter chart for Call of Cthulhu. You haven't lived until you've had a character go mad because he saw a nightgaunt sitting in a restroom stall reading a copy of the Necronomicon.
[Players roll dice.]
Cheating Bastard: A perfect 20!
Weasly Crusher: I can't believe the wagon fell on my head.
Cheating Bastard: I can't believe your eyeball popped out! What kind of crit tables are these?
Psycho Dave: The manly kind. I've been coddling you with those Arduin critical hit tables for too damn long.
(Minor edits mine.) And so on. Now, if this is the GM's goal—to take things absolutely literally, assume PC stupidity, and introduce the possibility of spectacle into everyday tasks—then there could be a problem. I'm making a valiant effort to respect all playstyles here, but I think I can say with some confidence that most players are at least mildly uncomfortable with a playestyle like Psycho Dave's. If this seems the route the GM's headed, the players should have a good, long talk with the GM about how many players find the Psycho Dave playstyle adversarial and alienating. Maybe after such a talk, a new GM will gravitate more toward the happy possibility or another playstyle altogether.
1 Al Bruno III's stories often contain strong language and mature themes. Discretion is advised. Further, there are many of them, and they're frequently tragically hilarious. Read alone when you've lots of time.