Writing about climate change can be dispiriting, to say the least. Even George Monbiot admits to occasional bouts of despair: "There is no point in denying it: we're losing ..." he opined in a Guardian article at the end of last year.

What can one man achieve in a world dominated by governments whose contradictory policies are often the product of their venal self-interest, by vast media empires sporting a host of vicious and deceitful pundits, and contrarians stuffing endless blogs with their bilious disaffection?

But isn't self pity this the way we disenfranchise ourselves? For an alternative, consider a man who single-handedly (at least at first), has severely dented the credibility of climate change scepticism. His name is John Cook, and he runs the definitive sceptic argument rebuttal website, skepticalscience.com (plus a free iPhone app).

The site is based on a simple premise: take each sceptical argument, and rebut it with actual science. Each rebuttal is carefully explained, and every assertion is backed up with a reference to the peer-reviewed primary science. It becomes clear in a matter of minutes that what you are reading is a digest of the research, not opinion stated as fact – unlike most sceptic arguments, I regret to say.

Since the content is, from the lay perspective, rather bullet-proof, too many criticisms of Cook's site are in the form of personal attacks. This must have got to Cook a little, especially sly accusations about patronage and motive, because he posted a response recently making clear he supported himself by working for a living.

As to what motivated him, his first concern was to ensure he could look his 10-year-old daughter in the eye when she grew up. "I want to be able to say 'I did my best to communicate the scientific reality to people,'" explained Cook. But Cook's second, self-professed, stimulus took me by surprise.

"I'm a Christian and find myself strongly challenged by passages in the Bible like Amos 5 and Matthew 25", he wrote. "... I care about the same things that the God I believe in cares about – the plight of the poor and vulnerable."

Talk about unexpected – faith is hardly the de rigueur mindset in scientific circles, particularly when it is so frequently associated with US right-wing Fox punditry, anti-science rhetoric, creationism and – bizarrely, in the case of climate change – the Rapture. But in Cook's case, it made sense. If I had a model in my head of what a proper Christian ought to be like, John Cook would fit the template pretty well.

He seems to embody many of the virtues Christianity is supposed to endow, and few of the vices history records so frequently. The frequent chasm between religious thought and temporal deed has troubled me greatly: "Between the motion and the act, falls the shadow," as TS Eliot would have it.

I have written before about the difficulties of reconciling viewpoints that others find mutually exclusive. How can a rational mind like Cook's – a solar physicist by training – also embrace the non-rationality of religion, if indeed he even accepts the premise?

Predictably, he uses evolution as an example. "I hold much store in empirical evidence ... There are multiple lines of evidence that humans evolved from lower life-forms. However, there are questions where a little more humility is required."

How did a man with a predilection for the hard-headed paradigms of scientific enquiry come to choose a faith-based foundation for his own life? What does he get from it that science doesn't give him?

"My understanding of Christianity just amazes and awes me, appeals to me at a very deep, spiritual level. So I guess my Christianity comes from a historical investigation and a deeper, visceral response".

I wonder if this response is essentially emotional. Is there a conflict between intellect and emotion, between science and faith?

"Nobody said life was meant to be easy. I find very appealing the basic principles of Christianity which are incredible and counterintuitive – in fact, so counter to human nature that I would suggest many Christians don't actually get it". Then, with telling irreverence, he quotes the Simpsons: "As for science v religion, I'm issuing a restraining order. Religion must stay 500 yards from science at all times".

We humans have an alarming habit of blaming the idea for our poor execution of it. There's nothing wrong with the tenets of Christianity. Cook demonstrates this: his faith seems to work the way faith is supposed to. His actions speak of considerable commitment, and the work continues unabated. After the excellent (and free) iPhone app, which also available for Android and Nokia phones, his latest initiative is to write new, simplified versions of the rebuttals. These are designed to complement the more technical explanations already on offer.

I don't know if there is a Heaven, but if there is, Cook's ticket is probably half paid for already.