Part of solving the climate-health communication gap requires training on both sides of the divide. Dr. Madeleine Thomson advocates for incorporating basic climate and environmental science into standard epidemiological training worldwide.

“I would incorporate some fairly straightforward information on climate and environmental disease drivers in all epidemiological training that happens around the world,” she says. “Outbreak response people can work with partners in countries to get the best data, but if the health sector doesn’t understand the issues, particularly around climate variability and change, then it’s very hard for them to use the information effectively.”

The problem isn’t just that climate scientists speak a different language—it’s that they often don’t understand the practical constraints and decision timeframes of public health work. Health officials need to plan within budget cycles, training programs, and procurement processes that operate on 1-5 year timelines, not multi-decade projections.

Similarly, public health professionals often lack the background to interpret climate data effectively or ask the right questions. They may not understand the difference between climate variability (El Niño and La Niña) and long-term climate change, or why scientists can project 2100 more confidently than 2030.

“You need climate scientists who are able to support decision makers across a range of time and spatial scales,” Thomson emphasizes. This means designing studies with practical decision timeframes in mind from the beginning, not just attempting to “translate” findings at the end.

Institutional structures that facilitate ongoing dialogue—like the WHO Collaborating Centres Thomson has worked with—provide crucial frameworks for sustained collaboration. Climate scientists and health professionals need to work together from project inception, clearly articulating needs and capabilities on both sides.

As climate change accelerates, getting this right becomes increasingly urgent.