Under rules of judicial procedure, a judge's findings that particular witnesses and pieces of evidence are credible or not credible are not subject to appellate review.
Judge Greer's rulings may be almost reasonable if all the evidence he regarded as 'credible' was actually true and all the evidence he regarded as 'not credible' was actually false, but that doesn't mean they're right. Any reasonable person would be able to see that Greer has accepted evidence that should not be considered nearly as credible as some of the evidence he has rejected. Unfortunately, the appeals process offers no protection against such things.
Yehp. He's just and evil man... the Florida SC and the US SC are in on it, too. I think the Society of the Rose has completely taken over all branches of the government... they'll probably be after our guns and tinfoil next.