Educate thyself:
https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/melting-glaciers.htm
Back at you...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/07/glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs/
One of these articles displays evidence.
The other does not and is written reactionary to evidence.
Shepard Glacier is now less than 25 acres in size and is therefore no longer considered an active glacier.
If the reactionary dumbass in the "Wattsupwiththat" article knew that a glacier less than 25 acres is no longer considered "an active glacier," he never would have made that bet that the glaciers won't be completely gone. And no one took the bet because everyone knows he would just shift the goalposts by saying "Look! It snowed once! That means the glacier isn't completely dead! Where's my $5000?" Glaciers melt asymptotically, meaning you have to have a cutoff size below which you don't consider it a glacier anymore--you just consider it a bunch of snow in the shadow of a mountain. That snow will probably never be completely gone, kind of like how a radioactive isotope never completely goes away--the concentration just becomes minuscule.
Even the title, "Glaciers Appear to be Growing, not Melting in Recent Years" is disingenuous. If there's ONE year when climate change slows, or some metric of temperature is colder, dipshits think that's enough to disprove the entire trend of global warming. Climate is a trend. No trend of anything occurring in nature is an absolutely straight line. To post that weak Wattsupwiththat article, you'd literally have to pretend the entire NPS page on the national park it operates doesn't exist. Sorry, clear observation and photographic evidence don't care about your feelings. One data point doesn't make an argument about or against climate TRENDS, and looks immensely weak in the face of dozens and dozens to suggest the contrary.
In fact, I'm not even sure it's worth it to hike Grinnell Glacier at this point anymore, because there's barely anything left.