I work on a huge project (more like a tangled up combination of dozens of mini projects that can't be easily separated due to poor dependency management, but that's a different discussion) in Java using eclipse. We've already turned off a number of warnings from compiler settings and the project still has over 10,000 warnings.
I'm a big proponent for trying to address all warnings, fix all of them if possible, and for those that are looked into and deemed safe, suppress them. (Same goes for my religious obsession with marking all implemented/overriden method as @Override). My biggest argument is that generally warnings help you find potential bugs during compile time. Maybe out 99 of 100 times, the warnings are insignificant, but I think the head scratching that it saves for the one time that it prevents a major bug, it's all worth it. (My other reason is my apparent OCD with code cleanness).
However, a lot of my teammates don't seem to care. I occasionally fix warnings when I stumble across them (but you know it's tricky when you touch code written by a co-worker). Now with literally more warnings than classes, the advantages of warnings are very much minimized, because when warnings are so common-place, nobody will bother looking into all of them.
How can I convince my teammates (or the powers that be) that warnings need to be addressed (or suppressed when fully investigated)? Or should I convince myself that I'm crazy?
(P.S. I forgot to mention what finally prompted me to post this question is that I sadly noticed that I'm fixing warnings slower than they are produced)