It's impossible for me to answer whether you have a valid claim or even what your chances of an appeal are (really, no lawyer could give you an answer based on specifics) without doing a review of the file. An appeal, however, considers only things that are technical in nature (such as a judge who may have applied the wrong "Grid" rule) or substantial in nature (such as not looking at evidence that was in the file and available at the time of the hearing).
Just based on these facts, the fact that the judge gave only partial weight to the doctor's inconsistent medical records does not by itself sound like a technical or substantial error, but a reasonable conclusion. Similarly, the fact that you were not specific as to how your impairments affect you is not the fault of the judge. An appeal isn't a new hearing, so the appeals council isn't going to take new testimony
While the appeals council can consider new medical records that come in on or up to the date of the administrative decision, they cannot consider new records after that date. So, for example, if you had a new MRI done that showed new drastic changes that result in a severe impairment, but that MRI was done even 1 day after the judge's administrative decision, the appeals council cannot consider that information.
Additionally, you should know that the average appeal what time is about a year, or just under that. During that time, you cannot file for new benefits while waiting the decision on your appeal. If your appeal is then denied again, and you re-file, it's possible that can affect your alleged onset date and possible back pay.
It sounds like perhaps you didn't use a lawyer through this process. At this point, if you are considering an appeal, I would suggest you talk to a firm who does social security disability law because an appeal is a bit more complicated and involves filing an appeal brief. It could be too that a firm may look at your medical records and the judge's decision and advise that you are better off filing a new claim.
You certainly have a number of serious conditions and it is possible that one or more of them prevent you from being able to work on a full-time basis. But without reviewing those medical records and speaking to you about how they affect you, it is impossible to say if the records are good or not. The other issue that comes into play, and I hate to say it, is sometimes the judge. No matter how good a person's records are, I feel a lot better going before a judge with a 48 or 50% grant rate versus one who has only a 30 or 25% grant rant.