Bael stands first in the Goetia and first in Weyer, and the resemblance of the name to Baal is the most frequently repeated derivation in the entire corpus. It deserves to be stated properly rather than asserted or dismissed.
The case for it is real. Baal is a Northwest Semitic title meaning simply lord, borne by the storm god Hadad at Ugarit and by a number of local deities across the Levant. Hebrew scripture treats Baal as the standing example of a foreign god, and the mechanism by which a displaced deity becomes a demon in the literature of the religion that displaced it is well documented across late antiquity. Beelzebub, from Baal-zebul, is the clearest instance, and it is clear precisely because the transit can be traced through surviving texts: an Ekronite god in the Book of Kings, a prince of demons in the Gospels.
The case against treating Bael as settled is also real, and it is usually left out. Nothing in Weyer or in the Lemegeton says that Bael is Baal. The Goetia's Bael has three heads, toad, man and cat, speaks hoarsely, and grants invisibility, and none of that has any counterpart in Ugaritic or biblical material about a storm god. The name may equally have arrived through a long chain of Latin and Greek intermediaries in which the original referent was already lost, and the same catalogue contains names that resemble nothing identifiable at all.
What can be said without argument is that the resemblance exists, that it is old, that the primary sources do not comment on it, and that the identification is an inference made by modern readers rather than a claim made by the texts. Exactly the same caution applies to Astaroth and Astarte, which is the other case always cited alongside this one.