OK, They Found CO2, Couldn't That Merely Mean Another Venus?

I came across this article, Carbon Dioxide Detected on Faraway World. The 1st line says: "Carbon dioxide, a potential fingerprint of life, has been discovered for the first time in the atmosphere of a planet orbiting another star." & I'm thinking "Isn't this overstating the facts for the sake of sensationalism? After all Venus has plenty of CO2 & life has nothing to do with why it was there."

then when I get to the next line I know that this is poor reporting. "However, the planet, HD 189733b, is too hot to be habitable." Another Venus, just as I thought. Or actually another Jupiter. From the article: "HD 189733b is about 65 light-years away. It is a giant, gaseous world known as a "hot Jupiter" because it orbits very close to its host star."

CO2 may be a potential sign of life, under the right circumstances, but to hype this in that way, is, to my mind a diservice to science. To mention that later in the article would have been fine. I would have left the potential fingerprint bit out of the opening sentence. & then cut out however from the next sentence. & started it with While. . . & ended it with "in the right scenario this could be a potential fingerprint of life."

Scientists are right to be excited by the discovery. It gives us a better understanding of God's creation. That aside, I still think that this article about an important discovery was poorly written. & that is disappointing to me since Space.com usually doesn't go in for the sensationalism style of this article.