Not really. If a judge's stated reasoning is inconsistent with a law, an appellate court can address that.
If, however, a judge's stated reasoning includes findings of fact which are clearly contrary to the evidence, the most an appellate court (or the Supreme Court) can do is order a judge to "consider" evidence he did not examine the first time. If a judge's consideration of evidence merely involves saying "I noted XXXX and didn't consider it relevant", there's nothing any appellate court can do to challenge that.
Judge Greer has determined a number of "facts" which are just plain wrong. Most fundamental, he has found that there is no reason to believe there even might be a conflict of interest involving Michael and Terri. If there were any possibility of a conflict of interest, he would be required to appoint a guardian ad litem. Since he says that there is no reason to believe such a conflict might exist (after having allowed Felos to fire a guardian ad litem who claimed Felos' actions were contrary to Terri's interests!), his failure to appoint a guardian ad litem as legally required cannot be challenged.