No, there is still no inconsistency. Higher temperature brings higher water vapor. More water vapor means a larger greenhouse effect and a still higher temperature. All these things are on average, of course. This is not a runaway positive feedback situation because other effects act to limit it—but it does shift things to a new higher equilibrium.
EDIT: JimZ says
"Alarmists don't like to deal with the real world."
Which is more than a little ironic, because he ignores actual data and makes the statement:
"The world climate basically paused after the year 2000 "
which he just made up or heard from Rush Limbaugh or something like that--there certainly is no real world data that back that up.
Another EDIT: This is the second time this question has been asked, and the second time that Jeff has ignored the evidence--which is massive--that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere follows temperature. This can be observed by everyone, since we all know the air gets muggy in the summer and in winter it's dry. If we want to be more quantitative about it, we could look at the annual cycle of precipitable water as shown by balloon soundings. You can find this sounding climatology at the Storm Prediction Center website (I'll put the link in the comments). Pick ANY site and you will see this. That's the annual cycle. We can also look at data that shows the long term water vapor content of the planet rising--you can find that data at the Climate4you website, which I'll also put in the comments. Jeff accuses scientists of making unrealistic equilibrium assumptions, but this data is NOT equilibrium data, and in fact Jeff does the very thing that he accuses scientists of, by assuming that water vapor is either present or not in the atmosphere.