Glenn Greenwald has written a clear statement here arguing that the assertions of the Telegraph article are deeply flawed, and based entirely on anonymous statements from government officials. It is worth a read. Here is one paragraph from it:

Source for that? Really I think you are making it up. Space X just finished their launch abort test for their capsule. They are likely going to be ready on time. They have been delivering Dragon 1 capsule to the station for a while now. What this really sounds like is a full court press by incumbent aerospace companies to derail SpaceX before they can demonstrate successful launches of humans to space. The committees in Congress and the Senate that underfunded the commercial space program were largely in the pockets of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, or other existing space companies. Here is a tweet from Charles Lurio, who is a fairly reliable source of space information:

There are a lot of established companies who want to kill Musk's businesses. These competitors have sunk costs, and Musk is threatening their monopolies by doing what they do cheaper and better. Examples: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, ULA are used to getting fat "cost plus" contracts for government launches. Space X looks like it will stop that. Tesla will be coming out with a $35000 electric car, that will likely sell very well. Energy companies don't what this to happen. Musk's enemies are competing using political subterfuge, bribery, and stealth "public relations" campaigns, rather than improving their business and manufacturing processes. Really all of this stinks like the worst forms of crony capitalism. America is showing its corrupt side. And so called "free enterprise" republicans are behind much of it.

Did you research that yourself, or did you get it from an anti-solar propaganda site? Is it focus group tested? Are you being paid to post? Or are you just passionately opposed to free low-cost solar energy that helps us reduce the money we send to corrupt middle eastern regimes? Personally, I think it is the former.

If you can believe that the world is 6000 years old, you can believe anything.

I don't have difficulty seeing the reality and the danger of global warming. Is it because I am scientifically educated? Well, then, the problem seems to be one of education and not innate biology.

The moderation on these subjects is absolutely incredible. Am I to assume that the people who mod this down support conclusively disproven hypotheses like the ones I mentioned? If so, it says a lot about the denial movement.

The oil industry receives far larger subsidies per year than Musk is accused of receiving over three companies and many years. And some of the "subsidies" Musk is accused of receiving consisted of loans that were paid back with interest.

It depends on what you mean by "proving". I would categorize "proving" hypotheses true in science as probabilistic. At some threshold, say when something is 99.9999999999999% probably of being true, then we consider it "proven". That probability is damned close to being certain. But in a philosophical sense, it is not certain...merely highly probable.

The problem comes when people who do not grasp statistics latch onto the idea of uncertainty. They might latch onto that hypothesis that is 0.000000000001% of being true and "root for it as an underdog". They do not grasp that something with such a low probability of being true is false. It is virtually impossible for it to be true. Thus the growth of fringe theories that have been scientifically proven false, and yet continue to be believed. (My opinion on the cause of this is that certain religious sects promote unquestioning belief in authority, which promotes habits of mind to believe whatever their own authorities tell them).

Yes. And in the rare case that I actually read an hypothesis from a denier, it is almost inevitably one that has been trivially disproven. Volcanoes as primary source of CO2. Wrong (simple CO2 accounting). Sunspot correlation to warming. Wrong (no real correlation). Changes in solar irradiation causing observed warming. Wrong (atmospheric profile temperature changes do not agree with hypothesis...and little relevant change in solar output during relevant periods).

In science, we pick the hypothesis that is most probably true, until it is disproven, or until we find a better one.

In contrast to the post from the parent of the parent ("...they didn't include error bands...") the parent to this post is most definitely informative and insightful.

The article shows error bands. The parent post is NOT insightful. It is incorrect.

When the contract is overly favorable to the company, I do count it as a subsidy. Many contracts Lockheed Martin makes with the government are "cost plus" contracts, meaning that the government pays the costs of the project plus a guaranteed profit margin of, say, 20%. The problem is that this gives an incentive for the contractor to inflate the costs, to over-design, to hire too many managers.

Not to mention that the Internet was started by the government. And companies like Lockheed Martin rely almost completely on government military subsidies. This article was a hit piece. The American media really is shockingly corrupt.