We have to appreciate Dr. Lovelock for the invent of the electron capture detector (a super sensitive detector to measure trace atmsopheric gas concentrations after gas chromatography separations... we used one to detect peroxyacetyl nitrate, a NOx precursor in polar environments), but I personally think his global warming views are a little extreme, and at first glance seems to conflict his earlier research. I mean, he thinks nuclear power is "the" only answer to global warming and has an incredibe doomsday attitude, it's unreal. As far as Lovelock and Margulis' Gaia Hypothesis, the feedback loops, such as the carbon cycle and the importance of the bacteria and other biosphere members, are very valid. I don't think the Daisyworld model was meant to do anything other than show feedback, and prove to the scientific community that their idea was not teleological. I guess people could take it to mean that no matter what occurs, the planet will respond favorable towards human life, but I don't think there's enough evidence to show that people have no effect on the Earth. Sure, there's feedback, but who's to say it's all negative, and will return us to the status quo. Any change causes other changes, in a quest to establish a new equilibrium, which may be different from past equilibriums and could cause (over long time periods) huge changes on the Earth. I'm sure Earth will survive, as it always have... but, will we?