Naomi Oreskes' article in the New York Times the other day, in which she called for use of 90% rather than 95% confidence intervals, seems to be generating quite a lot of interest.
The best review is here:
Oreskes wants her readers to believe that those who are resisting her conclusions about climate change are hiding behind an unreasonably high burden of proof, which follows from the conventional standard of significance in significance probability. In presenting her argument, Oreskes consistently misrepresents the meaning of statistical significance and confidence intervals to be about the overall burden of proof for a scientific claim:
Ouch.
(This is also relevant)