I used to think there are no dumb questions, but now I read "letsrun" :-) I can't speak for or against the "Central Governor" model, but I have seen a lot of praise for Noakes.
As a matter of consistency, if you want to adopt the "Central Governor" model, then you must adopt it fully, and likewise take the parallel steps, that since the LT doesn't exist, tempo runs are not exclusively about improving your LT, or that improving your LT can only be acheived by tempo runs. You need to redescribe what tempo runs do in terms of the new model. Then you can decide the value or the "at odds"-ness of tempo runs.
While we always try to estimate our LT, what's clear, and measurable, is how blood lactate accumulates at different intensities, and how that changes over time with training (and of course the related changes in race times). Replacing an exact threshold, with a sliding continuum doesn't change what you can clearly measure before, and after. It only changes how you talk about what you can measure or observe.
For example, Noakes ideas might suggest that slower and faster workouts provide similiar "LT" benefits as tempo runs, but it may take longer or be less beneficial. Or Noakes ideas might suggest that tempo runs bring "LT" benefits, and also bring some "AeT", and "VO2max" benefits too (to bring in two more thresholds).
I've seen Daniel's accused of being an economist. True or not, I believe his programs are designed to balance maximizing improvement, while minimizing effort and risk of injury. His programs are not purely based on the narrow foundation of a precipitous, or non-existant, threshold. Rather, his program is a collection, and specific combination, of several "optimal" training paces, each emphasizing a specific purpose, based on a pseudo-VO2max derived from recent race performances, which have been proven effective by trial and error, as well as reinforced by many years of scientific research.
A new model does not always mean radical and revolutionary changes, but may also suggest small changes, such as relaxing the emphasis on the boundaries of specific training paces.
I think it is up to Noakes, or his followers, to take the next steps to show how a new model can suggest changes in training (if it hasn't been done already).