He's good to very good when talking about performance and simd tricks but I don't know if he's particularly sage when it comes to general programming practice.
In this case I think he's probably wrong about compiler warnings but basically right about a lot of static analysers.
I'm not sure of your familiarity, but I've worked with Daniel on several projects, and think you might be guessing wrong about his attitude toward warnings. He's not the sort who ignores warnings. His tendency is to change his code so they don't happen, even if he doesn't think a particular warning is helpful or necessary.
I'm pretty sure his point isn't that the end user should get in the habit of ignoring warnings, but that those who decide which warnings are produced at which level need to be conscious that adding too many false positives can be counterproductive. His target audience here isn't application programmers, but those who decide which warnings are made default.
In this case I think he's probably wrong about compiler warnings but basically right about a lot of static analysers.